EEOC: Cheerwine bottling company fired an employee because of her MS, despite doctor’s clearance
Summary
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., alleging the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by subjecting a new merchandiser with multiple sclerosis to a medical-style physical agility test and then firing her the same day despite a doctor’s clearance.
According to the complaint, the employee walked with a limp caused by MS medication that damaged her hip cartilage. Six weeks into the role she was required to take a physical agility test — uniquely administered to her before the end of a 90-day probation — which recorded that she met the four job-specific tasks but also noted decreased hip strength, gait abnormalities and difficulty squatting. Cheerwine placed her on unpaid leave and terminated her that day; the following day she presented a doctor’s note clearing her to work, which the company allegedly rejected.
Key Points
- EEOC filed suit on Sept. 8, alleging disability discrimination and that the employer regarded the worker as disabled, in breach of the ADA.
- The physical agility test allegedly functioned as an impermissible medical exam — it was conducted in a medical setting and measured blood pressure and range of motion.
- The employee met the job’s performance expectations and had no prior discipline suggesting inability to do the role.
- Under EEOC guidance, current-employee medical exams must be job-related and consistent with business necessity; the complaint argues Cheerwine lacked objective evidence to justify the exam.
- Cheerwine did not respond to requests for comment in the published report.
Context and relevance
This case highlights EEOC enforcement around the ADA and the fine line between legitimate fitness-for-duty checks and unlawful medical inquiries. Physical agility tests that stray into measuring medical indicators (blood pressure, range of motion, strength) can trigger ADA protections if they are not strictly job-related and necessary.
For HR teams and managers, the suit is a reminder to document business necessity before ordering medical exams, to treat medical-clearance notes seriously, and to ensure any pre- or post-hire testing is applied consistently and does not single out employees in ways that reveal protected health information.
Why should I read this?
Quick and dirty: if you hire, manage or set testing policies, you need to know what crosses the ADA line. This story shows how a routine-sounding agility test can become a legal headache — and how rejecting a doctor’s clearance can escalate things fast. Saves you the guesswork; read it so your organisation doesn’t end up in the same mess.
Author note
Punchy take: this isn’t just a HR annoyance — it’s a legal pitfall. If you’re responsible for compliance or workplace policy, the details here matter. The EEOC complaint is worth a close read to avoid repeating the mistakes alleged.
Source
Source: https://www.hrdive.com/news/cheerwine-bottling-company-fired-employee-ms-eeoc/760124/
