EEOC charges Celadon with discrimination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission is suing Celadon Group Inc., charging that the Indianapolis-based trucking firm discriminated against candidates with disabilities who applied for driving jobs.

The EEOC claims in a lawsuit filed Feb. 29 that Celadon subjected job applicants to medical exams and failed to hire qualified truck-driving candidates because of disabilities, or perceived ones.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer cannot conduct a medical examination of a job candidate until the employer has given the applicant a job offer conditioned upon passing the exam, Laurie Young, regional attorney for the Indianapolis office of the EEOC, said in a prepared statement.

But the agency says Celadon conducted medical exams to reject candidates before making job offers, which violates U.S. Department of Transportation standards.

The EEOC charges that Celadon has been violating ADA requirements since 2009.

Celadon CEO Steve Russell denied wrongdoing and said the company is abiding by Department of Transportation regulations.

“The reality is, if you hire a driver and then give them a physical, that’s crazy,” Russell said. “If you talk to the [Department of Transportation], they will say they don’t understand what the EEOC is trying to do.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation couldn’t be reached for comment.

The suit alleges Celadon rejected at least 16 job applicants for truck-driving positions and cited four specific instances, three of which included applicants with hearing impairments and another suffering from deep venous thrombosis who was taking a blood thinner to treat the condition.

Medical exams given by Celadon included vision and hearing screenings, blood and urine tests, blood-pressure checks and other cardiovascular exams, as well as requests for medical histories and lists of prescribed medications, according to the EEOC.

The EEOC is seeking monetary damages on behalf of the applicants in addition to a permanent injunction barring the company from engaging in further employment practices that violate the ADA.

Celadon has 3,500 employees, including more than 2,400 drivers.•


This story originally ran in the March 1, 2012, IBJ Daily. Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication of IL.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues