EEOC Disability Screening Settlement: What Employers and CRAs Should Learn
A recent EEOC settlement is an important reminder that an employer’s hiring standards cannot screen out qualified applicants with disabilities unless the standards are legally supportable.
On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Damar Services, an Indianapolis residential-services provider, agreed to pay $65,000 and make policy changes to resolve a disability-discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC alleged that the company used qualification standards that screened out applicants with hearing and vision disabilities, made prohibited disability-related inquiries, and rejected a qualified deaf applicant. Read the EEOC’s official announcement.
This is not a new background-check law, and the EEOC announcement does not allege that Damar used a consumer reporting agency or a traditional employment background check. The compliance lesson is broader: hiring criteria, interview questions, scorecards, and screening workflows must not improperly exclude qualified applicants because of a disability.
What happened in the Damar Services case?
According to the EEOC, Damar conducted a phone interview with a housekeeping applicant, learned that he was deaf, and then stated that it could not accommodate him. The EEOC alleged that the applicant could perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation.
The agency also alleged that Damar’s qualification standards required applicants to communicate verbally and to hear and see within “normal ranges.” The EEOC said the company’s interview questions included prohibited disability-related inquiries.
Under the two-year consent decree, Damar will:
Pay $65,000 in monetary relief;
Remove vision- and hearing-related requirements from job postings;
Update its policies and procedures;
Use a vocational-rehabilitation specialist to review facilities, policies, procedures, and qualification standards;
Train staff;
Post a notice about disability discrimination; and
Report to the EEOC.
The case is EEOC v. Damar Services, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00575-MPB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Why this matters to employers
Employers often use job descriptions, recruiter intake forms, interview guides, skills assessments, physical-capability standards, and screening criteria to support hiring decisions. Those tools can be useful—but they need to focus on the actual, essential requirements of the role.
A generic requirement that an applicant must “hear normally,” “see normally,” or communicate only in one particular way can create risk if it excludes someone who could perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation.
The EEOC’s message is straightforward: employers face strict requirements when they use a qualification standard that screens out an individual with a disability.
Keep employment background checks separate from disability-based judgments
A background check is not a medical or disability assessment.
When an employer orders an authorized employment background check, the report should be limited to the authorized, role-appropriate scope. A consumer reporting agency does not decide whether an applicant can perform a job, whether an accommodation is reasonable, or whether a qualification standard is legally valid.
Employers should avoid using a background-check process to:
Ask applicants to disclose a disability or medical condition;
Seek medical information that is not necessary for the authorized screening purpose;
Label an applicant “unfit” based on hearing, vision, or another disability;
Apply blanket health-related disqualification rules; or
Treat a report as an automatic hiring decision.
The employer remains responsible for its job requirements, interview questions, accommodation process, and final hiring decision.
Five practical steps for employers
1. Review job postings and qualification standards
Review job descriptions, application questions, recruiter scripts, and hiring-manager checklists for broad hearing, vision, speech, mobility, or medical-condition requirements.
Focus on the essential functions of the specific role—not a generalized view of how a person should perform the work.
2. Check whether automated tools reinforce the same rule
If your ATS, assessment tool, or recruiting workflow ranks, filters, flags, or rejects applicants, confirm that it is not applying criteria that improperly screen out people with disabilities.
A human final decision does not fix a workflow that is built around an improper exclusionary rule.
3. Train recruiters and hiring managers
Recruiters and managers should know when to pause and escalate an issue instead of making assumptions about what an applicant can or cannot do.
Questions about accommodation, disability, or medical limitations can be legally sensitive. Employers should involve HR and qualified employment counsel when needed.
4. Use individualized, job-related review
An employer should not rely on a one-size-fits-all rule when evaluating an applicant’s ability to perform a role.
The job’s essential functions, available accommodations, safety requirements, and applicable law all matter. The analysis is the employer’s responsibility—not the CRA’s.
5. Follow the appropriate adverse-action process when a consumer report is used
If an employer may take adverse action based in whole or in part on an employment consumer report, it must follow the applicable Fair Credit Reporting Act process and any state or local requirements.
GBS can support the notice workflow, report delivery, applicant access, and dispute process. However, GBS does not make the final hiring decision. Learn more about adverse-action procedures.
What CRAs and background screening providers should do
The Damar settlement is primarily an employer-side ADA case, but it still offers useful guardrails for CRAs.
A CRA should:
Keep report scope tied to the client’s authorized screening purpose;
Avoid collecting or reporting disability or medical information unless there is a clear, lawful, and necessary reason to do so;
Never characterize an applicant as medically “qualified,” “unqualified,” “fit,” or “unfit” for a role;
Avoid product labels, scorecards, or client guidance that suggest an applicant should be rejected because of a disability;
Make clear that the client—not the CRA—sets lawful job criteria and makes the final employment decision; and
Maintain an accessible process for applicants to request reports and dispute inaccurate information.
Global Background Screening provides authorized screening information and workflow support. The employer is responsible for evaluating job qualifications, considering accommodations, and making an individualized hiring decision.
Frequently asked questions - EEOC Disability Screening Settlement
Is this an EEOC case about criminal background checks?
No. The EEOC’s announcement concerns disability-related hiring standards and interview inquiries—not criminal-history reporting, FCRA adverse action, or a CRA’s accuracy procedures.
Can an employer ever require hearing or vision abilities?
Potentially, but the requirement must be legally supportable and connected to the job’s essential functions. Employers should consult qualified employment counsel before using qualification standards that may screen out applicants with disabilities.
Does a CRA decide whether an applicant is qualified to work?
No. A CRA provides authorized screening information. The employer makes the employment decision and remains responsible for its job requirements and compliance obligations.
What should an applicant do if information in a GBS report is inaccurate?
Applicants can request a copy of their report or submit a dispute through Applicant Report Requests & Disputes.
Need a compliant employment screening process?
GBS helps employers order authorized employment background checks, manage applicant authorization, and support adverse-action workflows—without making the hiring decision for the employer.
Notice: This article provides general information, not legal advice. Disability-discrimination, accommodation, and hiring-standard requirements are fact-specific. Employers should consult qualified employment counsel regarding their job descriptions, screening criteria, and hiring processes.
