DHL Supply Chain has been slapped with a disability discrimination lawsuit by the EEOC after an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act came to light. Exel Inc., operating as DHL Supply Chain, reportedly failed to accommodate a temporary worker with sickle cell disease, opting to retaliate against her instead. The logistics company’s ADA violation case is particularly noteworthy due to the simplistic accommodations that could have been made for the concerned worker, however, she was instead told, “We do not accommodate restrictions.”
This alleged refusal to make workplace accommodation presents us with another case study on employee management and how an employer’s reluctance to support workers can hurt the business and its reputation in the long run.
“Employers cannot adopt blanket policies refusing to accommodate restrictions,” the EEOC states, in its disability discrimination lawsuit against DHL Supply Chain. (Image: Pexels)
Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by the EEOC Against the DHL Supply Chain: Let’s Talk ADA Violations
International logistics company Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, was hit with a disability discrimination lawsuit recently. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), former DHL Supply Chain employee Jessica Grier worked at a warehouse in Forest Park, Georgia, and had been at the organization since 2021. Her work in the warehouse required her to operate in temperature-controlled areas, conducting checks on the quality of the products that passed through.
The lawsuit explained that when a new supervisor was assigned at the start of 2023, Grier was reassigned to work inside a large walk-in cooler where the temperature was more extreme. Due to her preexisting sickle cell disease, she was at risk of a sickle cell crisis if she spent extended periods in extreme temperatures.
Grier informed her supervisor about the situation and asked to be reassigned to a different role or only be exposed to the cooler for limited periods. The supervisor then reportedly sent her home and asked her to return with a doctor’s note, stating that if she “can’t pick, she needs to leave.”
The Request for Accommodations Were Denied And Led To A Firing
The employee did return with a doctor’s note that she was able to perform her job but should avoid extreme temperatures, and the staffing agency that helped her secure the role, ManpowerGroup, wrote to Exel asking about accommodations. The company then responded and “Confirmed we do not accommodate restrictions.” When the employee returned to work, she was assigned to the cooler role once more, although there were six other line positions and five quality control positions that she could have been assigned. In less than two weeks, the employee was let go.
The Operation manager was then heard telling employees, “if you look around and notice that familiar faces are no longer here, it is because we don’t do medical accommodations, so either come to work and do what you’re told to do, or don’t come at all.” This confirmed that DHL Supply Chain denied accommodation and then fired the worker as well for requesting adjustment.
The EEOC alleged that in addition to these issues, workers who remained at the organization received the opportunity to be hired on as permanent workers, but due to these incidents, Grier was denied the opportunity.
The Logistics Company’s Alleged ADA Violation Is Reminder to Review State and Federal Regulations
If the lawsuit finds that DHL Supply Chain denied accommodation and fired the worker, the organization may be required to pay back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief to ensure no such incidents of discrimination occur in the future. Employers are legally required to adhere to federal law and the standards set by the ADA. The DHL Supply Chain disability discrimination lawsuit could have been avoided very easily, but if the allegations are true, the organization could be accused of choosing to make an example out of the employee’s request for accommodations.
“Exel could have easily assigned the employee to work in the other roles that did not require going into the cooler or limited her time working in the cooler,” Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office, said in the EEOC report. “Instead, the company stated unequivocally that it does not accommodate restrictions, and not only fired her, but also denied her permanent employment. That was unlawful, and the EEOC will continue to hold employers accountable for conduct.”
Just recently, retailer Kroger was also hit with a similar lawsuit for refusing to make reasonable accommodations for a worker who was previously allowed those accommodations, with the organization choosing to fire her on allegedly unlawful grounds instead. These cases occurring in parallel suggest that there is currently a reticence among employers to make accommodations to workers who are eligible and able to perform their roles with some support. While these cases might appear few in number and differ in terms of the central issues at hand, there is a growing need for a closer review of employment laws that govern workplaces in the U.S.
Want to stay at the top of your HR career in 2026? Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, employment regulations, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
