Home » Economy and work » Cheerwine Bottling Company Fires Employee with MS: Doctor’s Clearance Ignored, Says EEOC

Cheerwine Bottling Company Fires Employee with MS: Doctor’s Clearance Ignored, Says EEOC

Published by

Update on : October 2, 2025

EEOC: Cheerwine bottling company fired an employee because of her MS, despite doctor’s clearance

In a recent legal dispute, a company found itself at the center of controversy for allegedly breaching the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case highlights the delicate balance between workplace requirements and the rights of employees with disabilities. As more individuals step into diverse roles, it’s crucial for employers to navigate these complexities carefully to foster an inclusive environment.

Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co. has come under fire for its treatment of an employee diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. According to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the company mandated the employee to undergo a medical examination that seemed to unearth sensitive health information, which the ADA typically protects. This legal challenge raises questions about the legitimacy of such requirements and the implications for workplace equality.

The Allegations Against Piedmont Cheerwine

The lawsuit, referenced as EEOC v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., claims that the employee, who worked as a store merchandiser at Cheerwine’s facility in Colfax, North Carolina, faced undue scrutiny due to her condition. The individual reportedly walked with a limp, a side effect of medication for her multiple sclerosis that had caused deterioration in her hip cartilage.

Six weeks into her tenure, she was uniquely subjected to a physical agility test—an assessment not required of other new hires before completing their 90-day probationary period.
Despite successfully meeting all four job-related criteria, the test results indicated that she exhibited reduced strength in her hip and had difficulties with her gait and squatting.
Consequences of the Testing

Following the agility test, the situation escalated quickly. The company placed the employee on unpaid leave and terminated her employment later that same day. The following day, she presented a doctor’s note confirming her ability to return to work, but Cheerwine allegedly dismissed this validation, asserting that her termination stood firm.

The EEOC’s Position

The EEOC’s lawsuit contends that Cheerwine’s actions were discriminatory, either directly because of her disability or due to the perception that she was disabled, which contravenes the ADA. Moreover, the commission argued that the physical agility test constituted an illegal medical examination as defined by the ADA. Notably, Cheerwine has not issued a public comment regarding these claims.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Under the ADA, employers are permitted to request a medical examination from current employees only if it is directly related to the job and necessary for business operations. According to EEOC guidelines:
Physical agility tests, which assess an employee’s capacity to perform job-related tasks, are typically not classified as medical exams.
However, if these tests include medical evaluations—like blood pressure checks or range of motion assessments—they may overstep legal boundaries.
The EEOC’s complaint highlights several critical factors that suggest the agility test was merely a cover for an unlawful medical examination. These include:
The test’s design potentially aimed to uncover physical limitations.
Conducting the test in a medical environment.
Inclusion of medical measurements such as blood pressure and range of motion.
Additionally, the employee faced inquiries about her hip condition, inadvertently disclosing information about her medication and resulting limp.

Defending Medical Exams in the Workplace

Employers can defend a medical examination by demonstrating it is job-related and essential for business needs. This requires presenting credible, objective evidence that an employee’s medical condition hinders their ability to perform vital job functions. However, in this case, the employee had successfully met her job expectations without receiving any prior warnings or disciplinary actions regarding her performance.

This situation underscores the importance of understanding the legal protections afforded to employees with disabilities and the responsibility of employers to uphold these standards in their hiring and employment practices.