The driver had federal medical clearance, nine years' experience, and a six-pound chihuahua
The EEOC is suing Schneider National, alleging the company pulled a truck driver's job offer over her request to bring a PTSD service dog.
The federal agency filed the case on March 4 in the US District Court for the District of Maryland (EEOC v. Schneider National, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00905), accusing the trucking and logistics giant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. No final determination has been made.
According to the filing, Melissa Dafnis applied for a Dedicated Truck Driver – Target role with Schneider National on or around September 21, 2023. She held a valid Class A Commercial Driver's License, lived within the required distance of a designated work location, and had nine years of experience pulling a 44-foot fifth wheel recreational vehicle. A Federal Medical Examiner had cleared her to operate a commercial motor vehicle, finding no mental, nervous, organic, or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with safe driving.
Her DOT medical paperwork noted both her PTSD diagnosis and her use of a service dog. Schneider National allegedly told Dafnis she was a good fit, extended a conditional offer that same day, and scheduled her for orientation on October 2. The next day, September 22, the company allegedly withdrew the offer — even as its own agent, Vault Health, was just beginning to collect information about the accommodation request.
Over the following weeks, the EEOC alleges, Dafnis cooperated fully. She provided letters from two medical practitioners supporting the accommodation. She described her service dog — a six-pound female chihuahua trained to alert her to rising anxiety levels — and explained the dog would be confined to a carrier on the floor of the vehicle. She even offered to be observed driving with the dog during orientation.
On October 16, 2023, Schneider National allegedly denied the request and deemed her ineligible for the position. The stated reason, according to the filing: the service dog would create a "noise distraction."
Here is the detail that should give every HR leader pause. The EEOC notes that since Schneider National turned Dafnis away, every trucking company she has worked for has allowed the same accommodation — and she has performed her duties safely and effectively.
For HR professionals, the case is a sharp reminder that the interactive process under the ADA is not optional, and that denying an accommodation requires more than a generalized concern. When an applicant arrives with federal medical clearance, documented support from treating providers, and a willingness to demonstrate the arrangement works, the bar for refusal is high.
The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement or front pay, and a permanent injunction against disability discrimination. The agency alleges the conduct was intentional and carried out with malice or reckless indifference to Dafnis' federally protected rights.
As mental health accommodations — and service animals in particular — become more common in workplaces of every kind, this case is one HR teams across industries will want to watch closely.
