What happened. Paul Warren joined UPS in 1987 and, for the next 13 years, drove an 8,500-pound package delivery car between Rockland and Whitefield, Maine. He first experienced a partial seizure in 2000: Given a warning of sweating and goosebumps, he pulled off the road and waited for symptoms to abate. Then he went to a doctor, who diagnosed him with 'partial epilepsy' and prescribed medication. A year later, with his symptoms not completely controlled, he got a second opinion and an additional drug.

In the meantime, UPS had refused to give him a nondriving job until his union grieved the refusal; then the company employed him washing trucks and loading packages. The two-drug combination worked well, and he applied in June 2004 to return to driving his old Maine route. UPS again refused. The company has a nationwide policy requiring all truck drivers to hold a federal Department of Transportation (DOT) commercial driver's card. But DOT imposes its safety standards, which include prohibitions against anyone diagnosed with epilepsy or taking antiseizure medication, only on those who drive trucks weighing 10,001 pounds or more. As other UPS drivers with other impairments have done, Warren fought the nationwide policy.

He sued under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Maine Human Rights Act. A jury in a federal district court put the burden on UPS to prove that Warren represents a 'reasonable probability' of posing a danger to the health and safety of himself or others if he drives a package delivery car. UPS appealed the verdict to the 1st Circuit, which covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

What the court said. Appellate judges scrutinized the Maine law and determined that it is more protective of the rights of people with disabilities than the federal ADA. So UPS cannot offer a 'mere possibility' of Warren's presenting a safety risk; the company must show a 'reasonable probability,' as the lower court said. Warren v. United Parcel Service, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, No. 07-2197 (3/7/08).

Point to remember: Under the federal ADA, UPS has argued in other cases that the burden rests on any driver with a disability, such as hearing impairment, to prove that he or she does not represent a safety risk. How the question will be resolved is still up in the air.