A federal complaint alleges that a major supply chain services provider discriminated against a temporary worker by failing to accommodate her disability, ultimately resulting in her termination and denial of permanent employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 31, 2026, naming Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain (USA), as the defendant.
According to the filing, the EEOC brings this action under Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The agency asserts that Exel engaged in intentional discrimination against Jessica Grier by not accommodating her disability, failing to hire her for a permanent position, and discharging her because of her actual or perceived disability or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
The complaint outlines that Grier has sickle cell disease—a condition she was diagnosed with in 1991—which substantially limits several major life activities including normal functioning of her hemic system, respiratory system, and circulatory system. The EEOC describes how prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures can trigger pain crises for individuals with sickle cell disease. Grier managed her condition with daily medication and avoided extreme heat or cold when possible.
Exel operates a facility in Forest Park, Georgia, providing warehousing and logistics services for pharmaceutical clients such as Sanofi. At this facility, both Exel employees (called associates) and temporary workers supplied by staffing companies like ManpowerGroup US worked together under Exel’s supervision. Temporary workers were told they could be considered for permanent positions after a certain period.
Grier began working at the facility through Manpower in July 2022. Initially assigned to quality control or line roles—both located in areas kept at 72 degrees—she did not have to enter the large walk-in cooler where vaccines are stored. In January 2023, after a new Operations Supervisor took over, Grier was reassigned to work as a picker inside the cooler. She reported experiencing pain due to cold exposure and requested either limited time in the cooler or reassignment.
The complaint states that after informing her supervisor about her medical condition on January 2, 2023, Grier was sent home until she could provide a doctor’s note. A co-worker offered to switch roles with Grier but was told by management that if Grier “can’t pick, she needs to leave.” On January 5, Grier submitted documentation from her doctor confirming she had sickle cell disease and required avoidance of extreme temperatures but could perform job duties with accommodation.
Manpower contacted Exel’s Operations Manager about accommodating Grier’s condition but received confirmation that “we do not accommodate restrictions.” When Grier attempted to return on January 9, she found herself only scheduled for picker shifts despite multiple available positions that did not require work inside the cooler. Less than two weeks later on January 19, Exel discharged Grier from employment at its facility.
The EEOC further alleges that four days after Grier’s discharge during a team meeting with temporary workers an Operations Manager stated: “if you look around and notice that familiar faces are no longer here, it is because we don’t do medical accommodations.” According to the complaint, other temporary workers who remained employed were subsequently hired into permanent positions by Exel in February and March 2023—a benefit denied to Grier due to her termination.
The legal arguments presented include claims that Exel failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required under Section 102 of Title I and Section 503 of Title V of the ADA; subjected Grier to adverse actions based on disability; retaliated against her for requesting accommodation; acted intentionally; and did so with malice or reckless indifference toward federally protected rights.
The EEOC requests several forms of relief from the court: a permanent injunction prohibiting discriminatory practices; orders requiring Exel to implement policies ensuring equal opportunities for disabled individuals; back pay with interest; compensation for pecuniary losses including emotional distress; punitive damages; additional relief deemed necessary by the court; recovery of costs associated with bringing this action; and a jury trial on all factual questions raised by its complaint.
Attorneys listed on behalf of the EEOC include Marcus G. Keegan (Regional Attorney), Lakisha Duckett Zimbabwe (Assistant Regional Attorney), Steven A. Wagner (Senior Trial Attorney), Catherine L. Eschbach (Acting General Counsel), Christopher W. Lage (Deputy General Counsel), representing offices based at both Washington D.C. headquarters and Atlanta District Office. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-01720-ELR-CCB.
Source: 126cv1720_Equal_Employment_v_Exel_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
