Appeals court sides with employer that rejected deaf ambulance driver

Brewster, a family-owned company with about 1,800 employees, argued the job demanded near-constant communication with dispatch, patients, and staff at medical facilities. Drivers, it said, must respond instantly to emergencies such as heart attacks and falls. The company relies on a one-button radio system, so drivers never take their eyes off the road, and it testified that distracted driving is the top cause of its vehicle accidents. 

HR was closely involved throughout. Before the interview, the HR manager and a regional manager traded emails about how a deaf driver might be accommodated. One manager initially recommended hiring him. But after an interview and a ride-along, managers worried he could not communicate with patients or facility staff. Brewster considered moving him into a Day Care Van Driver role, only to find it “require[d] the same amount of communications.” A billing job had no openings for someone without experience. 

The company’s rejection letter set out five detailed questions and answers explaining its safety concerns, and the HR manager invited more discussion. The applicant acknowledges he never wrote back. 

At a February 2025 trial, the jury split – finding for Brewster on the failure-to-hire claim but for the applicant on a separate theory that the company failed to engage in the required “interactive process.” The trial judge threw out that second finding, and the First Circuit affirmed that result. 

The reasoning is what HR should note. The court repeated that the interactive process is “a two-way street,” and held that a breakdown in that dialogue creates no liability when no accommodation would have let the applicant perform the job’s essential functions without “undue hardship.” A flawed process, in other words, is not itself a violation if no workable fix existed.