In Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics, the Eleventh Circuit held that an employee can bring an ADA claim against an employer based on an improper medical inquiry regardless of whether the employee is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. More after the break.
John Harrison began working for Benchmark Electronics (“Benchmark”) as a temporary employee in 2005. A few months later, Harrison applied for a permanent position with the company and consented to a background check and drug test as part of the pre-employment inquiry. After Harrison’s drug test turned out positive for barbiturates, his supervisor, Don Anthony, approached him about it. Harrison informed Anthony that he had a prescription for the medication, and Anthony proceeded to call the Medical Review Officer (“MRO”) in charge of reviewing Harrison’s drug test. The MRO asked Harrison some questions over the telephone regarding the medication. With Anthony present in the room, Harrison told the MRO that the medication was for his epilepsy, a condition he had since he was a child. After the MRO cleared Harrison’s drug test and the company’s human resources department gave Anthony the go-ahead to hire Harrison, Anthony told human resources not to extend Harrison an offer. He then informed the temporary agency not to return Harrison to Benchmark, citing performance and attitude problems. The agency then fired Harrison.
Harrison proceeded to sue Benchmark under the ADA, alleging improper medical inquiry and discrimination due to a perceived disability. The district court granted summary judgment for Benchmark on all claims. Harrison appealed only the medical inquiry claim. The Court of Appeals first examined whether a non-disabled employee could state a private cause of action for a medical inquiry claim, an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. The ADA prohibits employers from “conduct[ing] a medical examination or mak[ing] inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.” Applying principles of statutory construction, the court reasoned that the statute at issue does not limit coverage to job applicants who are also disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The court stated that under the ADA, employers may ask follow-up questions after a positive drug test result to determine whether the medications taken are legally prescribed, so long as the questions do not relate to disability. Citing EEOC guidance, the court stated that questions that “are likely to elicit information about a disability” are prohibited as part of the pre-employment offer inquiry. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the supervisor’s presence in the room during the MRO’s conversation with Harrison constituted “an intentional attempt likely to elicit information about a disability,” and so reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Benchmark.
Very interesting comments on above case. I am involved in a similiar case
with an ex-employer.
After many years of steady, dedicated employment with high performance
evaluations, a new(evil) manager was hired …………..
She kept on(harrassing, forcing) until I released my medication information
to her, as she “perceived” that my use of long term opoids had affected my
ability to perform my job as a RN. As a result of this treatment my
pain management physician, who always supportive, requested in writing
with my consent to speak to the physician I worked for
to explain my current health status as it relates to my working abilities
and medical need or “necessity” to be prescribed long term opiods.
In this discussion between the physicians, in turn a request for a reasonable
accomendation to my work schedule would be made to am tardiness on
occasion as needed for the extreme fatique felt following a “pain flare”.
This request would be for only for 3-10 minutes following the set arrival
time of 8:30 am. It was well known I worked through
lunch(lunch at desk), and stayed nightly until the work was done. The patients
always came 1st. I stayed until the work was done, please note I was exempt,
a salaried worker. Also, I had perfect attendance, never called in sick.
Never did this information reach the physician I worked for,
so the request was not heard and the rest is…………….in process.
I have a claim filed with the EEOC as I write this, for discrimination, hostile
environment and retaliation.
Please contact me with other cases as we need to pull together as a group
to seek justice for those precious patients who do not deserve to
have their healthcare interrupted for such destructive and misguided
reasons.
Thank you,
Susan Broyles
I am so sorry, needed to add to above comments,
the injustice and retaliation continues on a daily basis.
It is not enough you have been branded “terminated”,
which has far reaching implications…………….
#1-finanical blow- income down to 1/4 of what it was, with a son
in college fulltime, who unfortunately despite his GPA and field of
study(engineering), thus far have found no finanical support.
Also, I do not qualify for a parent loan without a job, imagine
that???? He (my son) is a great young man and he did not deserve
to be the a victim in this!
#2- Aburpt stop to my 401K savings at a critical time in my career,
(51 years old, MANY years to my retirement date(2025!!)
#3- Being labeled “terminated” and among the protected class
of the ADA has made my potential, future job perspectives
NULL. All jobs are applied for now on-line, and I have a most
impressive resume, and yes I know the demand for RN’s.
So, please it does no good to hear, “you can get another job”,
nurses can always get another job!! Thus far, have been turned
down by 5 jobs, with reason “unknown”, just another blow or retaliatory kick.
Well, also let me express, that the loss of my job in 10/09
has been just as painful as a death in the family(yes, have gone through
such, loss of parents sudden, tragically in auto accident in 1976).
#4 There are others- others that have been” scalped” by this
same evil manager in her previous jobs and others where I was
employed. Never do these individuals collect just one!!!
The saddest thing in all of this-
We all worked in a cancer center where those that fight so hard to live
another day , in no way deserve such pettiness and insensitivity from
those they entrust their lives to.
I am proud that walked out as I walked in, a strong patient advocate
never participating in the negative or evil behavior of one such
manager.
But, no ill feelings or need to “get even”, just prayers for the dear
patients and their families, as well as the strength and faith to
continue the fight that only comes from our heavenly father.
The pursuit of justice is what gives me the strength to perservere!
Thank you,
Susan Broyles