Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
A new disability-discrimination settlement from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Atlanta District provides a useful reminder that an employer’s ADA compliance system is only as effective as the supervisors who receive accommodation requests.
On September 23, 2026, the EEOC announced that Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, agreed to pay $80,000 and implement additional remedial measures to resolve an ADA lawsuit involving a temporary employee at its Forest Park, Georgia logistics facility. The case, EEOC v. Exel Inc., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01720-ELR-CCB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia earlier this year. See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/international-logistics-company-exel-pay-80000-settle-eeoc-disability-lawsuit.
What Happened?
According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employee had sickle cell disorder, which can be aggravated by exposure to extreme cold. Although she was a temporary worker supplied through a staffing company, she performed work at Exel’s Forest Park facility. One assignment at the facility required employees to spend significant amounts of time inside a cooler.
In January 2023, a new supervisor assigned the employee exclusively to cooler work. She requested either shorter periods inside the cooler or reassignment to one of two other available assignments that did not require entering the cooler. According to the EEOC, she had previously performed the non-cooler assignments during most of her time at the facility.
The EEOC alleged that Exel denied the request and told the employee that it did not accommodate medical restrictions. Shortly afterward, she was discharged. The agency further alleged that Exel subsequently converted the other temporary employees to full-time positions but did not offer the employee a permanent position.
The parties have now resolved the litigation through an approved consent decree rather than proceeding through discovery and trial. The settlement should therefore not be read as a judicial finding that Exel violated the ADA.
The Non-Monetary Relief May Be the More Important Part
Although the $80,000 payment attracted the headline, the compliance obligations in the consent decree provide perhaps the more useful lesson for employers.
Exel agreed to revise the employee handbook at the Forest Park facility to explain how employees can request accommodations, train relevant managers regarding their ADA responsibilities, post notice of employees’ disability-discrimination rights, and provide periodic reports concerning certain future accommodation requests at the facility.
Those requirements highlight an important operational reality: accommodation requests frequently do not begin with HR or employment counsel. They begin with a front-line supervisor.
An employee also does not necessarily need to use the words “ADA,” “reasonable accommodation,” or “interactive process.” When an employee communicates that a medical condition is interfering with the ability to perform work and asks for a workplace change, the employer should recognize that the conversation may implicate the ADA and route the request appropriately.
Why It Matters for Georgia Employers
The case also involves an issue that can be overlooked in workplaces relying heavily on contingent labor: temporary-worker status does not eliminate potential ADA obligations. Depending on the circumstances, a host company may qualify as an employer under federal discrimination law even though another company technically supplies or pays the worker.
More broadly, the allegations illustrate why blanket rules such as “we do not accommodate restrictions” are dangerous. The ADA generally requires an individualized assessment of whether a reasonable accommodation would allow a qualified employee to perform the essential functions of the job without imposing an undue hardship.
Here, the EEOC’s theory was particularly straightforward: other assignments allegedly existed, the employee had previously performed them, and she specifically requested reassignment to those positions or reduced exposure to the cooler.
Practical Takeaways
- Train front-line supervisors to recognize accommodation requests. Managers should know to escalate medical restrictions and requests for workplace changes rather than accepting or rejecting them on their own.
- Avoid blanket “no restrictions” policies. ADA accommodation decisions generally require an individualized analysis rather than a categorical rule.
- Consider reassignment and modification of working conditions. When an employee identifies a specific obstacle, employers should determine whether an available modification can address it before concluding that accommodation is impossible.
- Do not overlook temporary workers. Employers using staffing agencies should establish clear procedures for communicating and addressing accommodation requests involving contingent employees.
- Document the interactive process. Employers should record the request, potential accommodations considered, information obtained from the employee, and the reasons an accommodation was accepted or rejected.
For Georgia employers, Exel is a useful reminder that ADA risk can begin with a seemingly routine conversation between an employee and a supervisor. A well-designed accommodation policy is important—but ensuring that the person who first hears the request knows what to do next may be even more important.