Federal guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act states that all employee medical information must be kept confidential, but that goes above and beyond what the statute requires, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 20.
Despite what the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says, ADA protects only information obtained in response to medical inquiries. Health information volunteered by an employee is not subject to the law’s confidentiality provisions, the court found in EEOC v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, No. 11-2848, 2012 WL 5846208 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2012).
Gary Messier found out that his former employer was disclosing his medical condition to potential employers calling to check his references. He filed a claim with EEOC and the commission sued on his behalf. EEOC alleged that the employer had violated ADA’s confidentiality provisions (42 U.S.C. §12112(d)).
‘Inquiry’ vs. ‘Medical Inquiry’
ADA requires that employee medical information obtained from “medical examinations and inquiries” be treated as a confidential medical record and kept separate from personnel records.
EEOC argued that that the term “medical” modifies only the word “examinations.” This would mean that information obtained from both “medical examinations” and non-medical “inquiries” must be kept confidential. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin disagreed and dismissed Messier’s case.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed that lower court’s ruling. Congress clearly intended “medical” to modify both “examinations” and “inquiries,” meaning that only information received from “medical exams” and “medical inquiries” must be kept confidential, the court said.
Furthermore, the information contained in the relevant section “confirms that the word ‘inquiries’ does not refer to all generalized inquiries, but instead refers only to medical inquiries,” the 7th Circuit explained. “The entire section is devoted to a discussion of a disabled employee’s ‘medical record,’ ‘medical condition or history,’ ‘medical files,’ and medical ‘treatment.’” Therefore, to be protected, the information had to be received through a medical inquiry, the court said.
In Messier’s case, no medical inquiry was made. Given the “vast number of reasons an employee could miss work without informing his employer, it seems unreasonable to assume that an employer checking in on his absent employee has the intent to request or acquire medical information,” the 7th Circuit determined, quoting the district court.
Therefore, the employer did not have to treat its knowledge of Messier’s migraine condition as a confidential medical record, the court concluded.
Read the whole story on HR Compliance Expert.net.