In EEOC v AutoZone, the EEOC sued AutoZone on behalf of an employee who suffered injury and disability because his employer would not provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Fed Ex argued that the damages awarded by the jury were too high, and also offered evidence of its ADA compliance policy set forth in the employee manual. The court ruled:
A)for the defendant AutoZone, since the establishment of an ADA compliance policy was sufficient to establish a good faith effort to comply with the ADA
B)for the defendant AutoZone, because plaintiff had not established that he suffered from a disability
C)for the plaintiff because the damages awarded were consistent with the damages awarded in other cases
D)for the plaintiff because he established that he suffered from a disability

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In EEOC v AutoZone, the EEOC sued AutoZone on behalf of an employee who suffered injury and disability because his employer would not provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Fed Ex argued that the damages awarded by the jury were too high, and also offered evidence of its ADA compliance policy set forth in the employee manual. The court ruled:
A)for the defendant AutoZone, since the establishment of an ADA compliance policy was sufficient to establish a good faith effort to comply with the ADA
B)for the defendant AutoZone, because plaintiff had not established that he suffered from a disability
C)for the plaintiff because the damages awarded were consistent with the damages awarded in other cases
D)for the plaintiff because he established that he suffered from a disability

In EEOC V AutoZone, the EEOC Sued AutoZone on Behalf