EEOC sues Wagner Equipment for testing a returning painter against the old, higher lifting standard instead of its lowered one

Wagner, a Colorado Caterpillar dealer ^[2], reclassified the painter job from "Heavy" to "Medium" in August 2021 and cut the job's maximum lift to 50 pounds, the complaint says ^[9]. That was the month the painter had her knee replaced, while she was on medical leave ^[5]. On November 5 she took the old Heavy version of the test anyway, and according to the complaint she was never tested on the updated standard ^[10]. That version had her lift 100 pounds from the floor and carry a 100-pound sack of sand 10 feet to a 50-inch surface and back, three times ^[8]. Both 100-pound tasks were twice the limit the company had set for her job that August ^[2].

Much of the complaint rests on the company's own paperwork. The tester wrote down the painter's statement that her role involved no heavy lifting, and that lifting 100 pounds at work would get her written up for a safety violation ^[12]. On her account, then, the test demanded a lift her employer's safety rules would have disciplined her for. The EEOC separately alleges she never had to lift a 100-pound sandbag in more than a decade as a painter there ^[19][3].

The test measured lifting done alone, while the job as the complaint describes it came with lifting equipment and help from co-workers ^[4]. The EEOC also alleges nobody at Wagner discussed adjustments with the painter, the step the ADA calls the interactive process ^[15]. Her October request for a desk job or light duty had already been turned down ^[6]. After the test she got a November 9 letter from the benefits coordinator ^[16]. It gave her two paths, long-term disability with a possible retest later or an application for another job, and said her employment "may end" if she had secured neither by December 6 ^[16].

Wagner's best defence is that a shop full of heavy machinery has good reason to be cautious with a replaced knee, and that a doctor's note clearing her without restrictions ^[7] does not prove what the knee can carry. But the tester's recommendation was the cautious option ^[13]. Her proposed 30-day retest window would have closed on December 5, a day before the deadline in the company's own letter ^[3].

The warehouse job paid about 39 percent less per hour ^[1]. Its test had her carry a 94-pound box to a 48-inch platform, well above the cap her tester had proposed, and she stopped over the same knee concerns, the complaint alleges ^[18][13].

For operators, the risk sits in a handoff. Wagner rewrote the classification while the painter was on leave ^[9]. Throughout that leave she stayed in touch with her supervisor, the benefits coordinator and a third-party leave administrator, the complaint alleges ^[20]. Even so, the test she took in November was the old one ^[10]. The complaint as reported gives no reason, and Wagner's response is not in the account. The decision for this quarter is whether each return-to-work test is tied to the current job rating and to the equipment and help the job actually has. The consequence next quarter is that every gap between the two can become an exhibit if a claim is filed. For now, these are allegations in an EEOC complaint ^[1].