Samson v. Federal Express

Samson applied for a job with Fed Ex as a Vehicle Technician. He was an experienced vehicle mechanic, and also a Type-1 insulin-dependent diabetic. Since FedEx is a motor carrier, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ("safety regulations") apply. Samson was offered the job conditional upon his passing a physical exam, as required by the safety regulations, but because of his diabetes, he failed the medical exam. The job offer was withdrawn, and Samson sued.

Questions:

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. How do courts determine whether particular tasks are "essential functions" of jobs? What was the evidence that test-driving was an essential function of the Vehicle Technician job? Why does the court nonetheless conclude that a reasonable jury could find that test-driving was not an essential function of this job?

3. Why do the Federal Motor Carrier Regulations requiring medical certification of drivers not resolve the case in favor of Federal Express?

4. What argument does the dissenting judge make? Is it persuasive? Why or why not?