Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Utah: UPS driver, whose condition was aggravated by extreme heat, advances failure-to-rehire claim, (Jan 9, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

He plausibly alleged that he could work early in the morning when temperatures were likely cooler, and then only work for a short period in 90-degree-plus heat.

A longtime UPS driver, who resigned after being denied his request to transfer from Arizona back to Utah due to a thyroid condition which prevented him from working in high temperatures for up to four hours, and then after accepting a lower-paid hybrid position was denied a promotion to a regular driver job and subsequently denied rehire to a driver position after he again resigned, partially survived UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. A federal court dismissed his claim that the denial of the transfer was discriminatory since he did not meet seniority and transfer-list requirements under the union contract, and it also tossed all his retaliation claims since he failed to plausibly allege causation. However, the court allowed his failure-to-hire discrimination claim to advance to discovery, concluding that because fact issues remained as to when local temperatures generally exceeded 90 degrees, his proposed early-start modified schedule may have been a reasonable accommodation (Banks v. United Parcel Service, No. 4:23-cv-00067-AMA-PK (D. Utah Jan. 5, 2026)).

The driver began working for UPS as a full-time package car driver in 2000. He worked out of the UPS center in West Valley City, Utah until 2016, when he transferred to the UPS center in Moab, Utah. In May 2018, he transferred to the UPS center in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Health issues related to severe heat. He soon began struggling with symptoms of heat exhaustion during his shifts. In June, he was diagnosed with a permanent thyroid disease that, when working in high temperatures, would cause him to suffer from heat exhaustion, muscle cramps, diarrhea, lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating. He provided his supervisor with a doctor’s note stating that he needed to be transferred to a location with a cooler climate or, if he stayed in Arizona, needed to be assigned to a night shift and/or an indoor shift.

Ineligible for transfer under CBA. Though his supervisor indicated that a transfer back to Moab may be possible, the labor relations department did not allow the transfer. He then took FMLA leave while continuing to seek a transfer. However, HR advised him that he was not currently eligible under the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and that to be placed in an open driver position imminently, he needed to resign and seek to be rehired.

Resigns, reapplies. He resigned after his FMLA leave expired and later reapplied for a full-time package car driver position in West Valley City in January 2019. After a hiring freeze was lifted and the position was open to external candidates, he was not selected for the position. In June 2019, he accepted a part-time package handler position and immediately put his name on the internal list for consideration for a full-time driver position. Later that month, he was hired for a full-time hybrid position that included driving and indoor shifts.

Denied promotion. In late January 2020, he attempted to apply for an open, full-time package car driver position in Moab, but did not get the job. He resigned from the hybrid position in April as he was not earning enough in that role. In October, he filed an EEOC charge alleging disability bias related to the January 2020 denial.

Denied rehire. Meanwhile, he applied for an open, full-time driver position in Gypsum Colorado in August 2020, but did not get the job. In November 2020, he applied for another driver position in Moab, but was again rejected. He then filed another EEOC charge.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging ADA claims of disability discrimination and retaliation, and the parties subsequently stipulated that all claims predating January 2020 were time-barred. At issue was UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on all but the discrimination claim for the August 2020 failure to hire.

CBA barred promotion. The court first held that the driver failed to plausibly allege that he was qualified for the promotion and transfer to Moab in January 2020 because he was not eligible pursuant to the terms of the CBA, which required at least one-year seniority and that he put the requisite information on the master transfer list finalized in December 2019. Though he argued that he did not need to meet these requirements, the language in the CBA made clear that they were mandated. Thus, because he was hired in the hybrid position at the end of June 2019, he failed to allege that he met the job-related requirements of the position he desired.

Rehired with modified schedule? However, the court rejected UPS’s contention that his failure-to-hire claim failed since he could not perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. According to his medical provider, he could not work in conditions over 90 degrees for five to six consecutive hours per day. However, he could still work in temperatures above 90 degrees, but only for one to four hours per day. UPS argued that due to these restrictions, he was medically unable to work in Moab on account of the hot conditions there, and asked the court to take judicial notice of National Weather Service data indicating that the monthly highest maximum temperature for Moab from May to September is, on average, above 90 degrees.

However, the court found that this information was not dispositive as it did not reflect when during the day—and for how long—the temperature generally exceeds 90 degrees. Such information was relevant since the driver alleged that he could be reasonably accommodated in the form of a modified schedule pursuant to which he would make deliveries in the early to mid-mornings or later in the evenings. For example, he could work from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and thereby avoid long exposure to conditions over 90 degrees.

Based on these allegations, it could be inferred that the driver could work in over 90-degree temperatures for up to four hours of his eight-hour workday. Moreover, since fact issues remained as to what time during the day temperatures in Moab generally exceeded 90 degrees, the court could not conclude at this juncture that his proposed modified schedules necessarily violate his medical restrictions. “Instead, it seems plausible that [the driver] could work early in the morning when temperatures are likely cooler and then only work for a short period of time in temperatures exceeding 90 degrees.” Because UPS failed to offer any other reason why such a modification in schedule would be unreasonable, the court found the driver plausibly alleged that he could perform the essential functions of the position with a reasonable accommodation.

No retaliation. But UPS won its bid to dismiss his remaining retaliation claims since he failed to plausibly allege causation. First, the temporal proximity between his transfer requests from June 2018 to August 2018 and the first alleged adverse action in January 2020—almost 18 months—was too long to support an inference of retaliation. Moreover, beyond conclusory allegations, he failed plausibly to allege that the hiring manager involved in the three adverse employment decisions held any retaliatory animus. Indeed, whether the decisionmaker was even aware of his accommodation requests was speculative.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-00067-AMA-PK.

Judge: Allen, A.

Attorneys: David J. Holdsworth (Law Offices of David J. Holdsworth) for Jay Banks. Delilah L. Evans (Fennemore Craig) for United Parcel Service Inc.

Companies: United Parcel Service Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination UnionsMembers UtahNews