EEOC Settles ADA Suit for $36K After Cheerwine Bottler Imposed a Premature Agility Test and Impermissible Health Inquiries

Overview

Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company will pay $36,000 to settle an EEOC disability-discrimination lawsuit over how it handled a workplace medical exam at its Colfax, North Carolina facility. According to the EEOC, an employee whose multiple sclerosis medication had deteriorated her hip cartilage — causing her to walk with a limp — was prematurely required to take an agility test and asked impermissible questions about her health. Although she met the physical requirements of the job, the company placed her on unpaid leave pending full medical clearance, then rejected her doctor's return-to-work note and terminated her. Under the two-year consent decree (EEOC v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company, No. 1:25-cv-00821, M.D.N.C.), the company must revise its written anti-discrimination policies, train managers, supervisors, and HR staff, post an employee notice, and report to the EEOC. The case is a reminder that fitness-for-duty and agility testing must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and must not become a vehicle for disability-related medical inquiries barred by the ADA.

This enforcement action underscores the importance of proactive compliance and self-auditing. Below, we break down what was cited, why it matters, and what employers in similar industries should do now.

What Was Cited

Violations Cited

Based on the enforcement action details:

• Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company will pay $36,000 to settle an EEOC disability-discrimination lawsuit over how it handled a workplace medical exam at its Colfax, North Carolina facility
• According to the EEOC, an employee whose multiple sclerosis medication had deteriorated her hip cartilage — causing her to walk with a limp — was prematurely required to take an agility test and asked impermissible questions about her health
• Although she met the physical requirements of the job, the company placed her on unpaid leave pending full medical clearance, then rejected her doctor's return-to-work note and terminated her
• Under the two-year consent decree (EEOC v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company, No. 1:25-cv-00821, M.D.N.C.), the company must revise its written anti-discrimination policies, train managers, supervisors, and HR staff, post an employee notice, and report to the EEOC
• The case is a reminder that fitness-for-duty and agility testing must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and must not become a vehicle for disability-related medical inquiries barred by the ADA

Case reference: EEOC v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., No. 1:25-cv-00821 (M.D.N.C.)

Who Is Affected and Where This Applies

This applies to employers operating in North Carolina (view North Carolina compliance profile).

Industries affected: manufacturing. Employers in Manufacturing should prioritize their review of this update and assess whether their current programs meet the new requirements.

Compliance Timeline

Background and Context

The Occupational Health Regulatory Landscape

Occupational health programs encompass employer obligations including medical surveillance, fitness-for-duty evaluations, return-to-work assessments, and workplace health screenings. These programs are governed by OSHA substance-specific standards (silica, lead, asbestos, benzene, cadmium, and others), state workers' compensation requirements, and ADA/EEOC guidance on permissible medical examinations and inquiries.

For employers in regulated industries, occupational health compliance is not optional. OSHA's substance-specific standards mandate baseline and periodic medical examinations for exposed workers, with specific frequency requirements, medical removal triggers, and recordkeeping obligations. Effective programs go beyond minimum compliance to proactively identify and mitigate workplace health risks — and employers who invest in comprehensive occupational health typically see reduced workers' compensation costs, lower absenteeism, and fewer lost-time injuries.

Why This Matters for Employers

Enforcement actions are one of the clearest signals of regulatory priorities. When OSHA or another agency cites specific violations, assesses penalties, and publicizes the case, it serves as both a deterrent and a roadmap. Employers in similar industries — particularly those with comparable operations, equipment, or processes — should treat this case as a direct prompt to audit their own programs.

The violations cited here point to specific standards that the agency considers high-priority for enforcement. Historically, citations in one region often precede increased inspection activity in the same industry nationwide as area offices share enforcement intelligence and target similar hazards.

Industry focus: This primarily affects employers in the Manufacturing sector. Organizations in this industry should evaluate their current compliance posture and determine if existing programs meet the updated requirements.

For employers reviewing their own practices, the key question is not whether a similar inspection will happen — it's whether your documentation and programs would withstand one. OSHA inspections can be triggered by employee complaints, referrals from other agencies, or programmed inspections under National Emphasis Programs.

Settlement and Enforcement Context

The monetary relief in this case totals $36,000, paid under a two-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's ADA claims. Because a consent decree is negotiated by the parties and entered by the court, the amount is final — it is not a proposed penalty subject to an informal conference, contest before a review commission, or later settlement. Consent decrees also impose non-monetary obligations; here, the company must revise its anti-discrimination policies, train managers, supervisors, and HR staff, post an employee notice, and report to the EEOC.

What Employers Should Do Now

BlueHive provides occupational health services nationwide and tracks this topic through our Occupational Health compliance hub. View the North Carolina compliance profile for all tracked regulations in this state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Compliance Updates

• Healthcare Worker Background Check Requirements — Occupational Health, New York (Oct 2025)
• Occupational Health Surveillance Program — Occupational Health, Massachusetts (Jan 2025)
• Roofing Company Cited for Fall Protection Violations — OSHA, Texas (Nov 2025)

---

Source: Enforcement Action · Verified 2026-09-02

This article is part of BlueHive Compliance Watch, which monitors occupational health regulations across all 50 states and federal agencies. Browse all state profiles → · View all compliance articles →