After Workers’ Comp Injury, Essential Function Questions Propel Driver’s ADA Claim

Case File

Following a workers' compensation injury, questions arose about what functions were and weren't essential to a truck driver's job. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Hardin v. Oakley Transport, Inc., 773 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (M.D. Fla. 2025)

What Happened

A driver for a trucking company suffered a work-related injury to his left knee at a terminal. He underwent an MRI of the knee, and his doctor instructed him not to return to work. The doctor opined that the driver had a torn meniscus that would require arthroscopic surgery and subsequent physical therapy.

The company, via its adjuster, paid the bill for the examination and treatment but refused to authorize the driver's knee surgery. Later, the doctor signed a form stating that the driver could return to regular duty, and the company provided the driver with a truck with an automatic transmission rather than a manual transmission.

Nearly a year after the injury, the doctor placed the driver on light duty work with a specific restriction of "no loading/unloading." The driver did not undergo surgery.

About a month later, the driver reported to his doctor that he could not drive due to "great pain" in his knee. The doctor instructed the driver not to return to work and singed a workers' compensation from stating that the driver could not return to work.

Through an attorney, the driver filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits with the State of Florida's Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.

About two months later, the doctor authorized the driver to return to work on a light duty restriction. Following this, the company sent a letter to the driver's attorney stating that the parties could settle for $40,000, and the settlement would include a voluntary resignation. The attorney confirmed the settlement. However, the company never paid the driver the $40,000.

Some six months later, the claims administrator expressed that the driver was eligible to receive temporary partial disability benefits.

The driver sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that he should not have been terminated from his position because he could perform the essential functions of his job while on a light-duty restriction from his doctor.

Rule of Law

Whether an ADA plaintiff can perform the essential functions of a position is a fact-specific inquiry and courts consider the employer's description of the job and how the job is actually performed in practice.

What the Court Said

According to the court, it would be up to a jury to decide whether the driver could perform the job's essential functions.

On the one hand, the driver, whose job class was "bulk tank professional," presented evidence that the job did not require lifting boxes to unload a trailer. On the other hand, the company presented a job description saying that unloading and loading freight were required. However, the loading and unloading was conducted via hydraulic pump, and the company did not present evidence that these functions could not be performed by a bulk tank professional while on a light-duty restriction.

Verdict: The court denied the company's motion on the driver's failure to accommodate claim.

Takeaway

Whether a person is "qualified" under the ADA depends on whether he -- with or without reasonable accommodation -- can perform the essential functions of the employment position he holds or desires.

Share This Article: