Employees need not have a disability to challenge the legality of an employer’s required medical exams, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case of first impression. At the same time, the court also reaffirmed the ability of an employer to request an examination because it was related to performing a job and was a business necessity.
The case, Owusu-Ansah v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 11-13663 (May 8, 2013), involved Franklin Owusu-Ansah, a Coca-Cola quality control specialist who threatened his co-workers.
After eight years with the company, Owusu-Ansah complained to his manager that co-workers and supervisors had discriminated against him and harassed him because he was from Ghana. According to the manager, he became agitated during the meeting, banged his hand on a table and said that someone was “going to pay for this.”
Because the company determined this to be a threat made against other employees — and because Owusu-Ansah refused to speak with HR about the incident — the company requested that he speak with an independent psychologist.
After Owusu-Ansah described for him the alleged instances of discrimination and harassment, the psychologist concluded that there was a “strong possibility that he was delusional.” He called Owusu-Ansah a “very stressed and agitated individual” and recommended that he be placed on paid leave and be evaluated by a psychiatrist.
Coca-Cola implemented the recommendations and informed Owusu-Ansah that, as a condition to his continued employment, he was to “complete an evaluation to identify whether there were any issues that could represent a risk to the safety of others in the workplace.”
Owusu-Ansah complied and was cleared to return to work.
He then sued, alleging that the evaluations went beyond what ADA permits. The law states that employers “shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” (42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A))
While most ADA claims require courts to first determine whether an individual has a disability and is thus eligible to sue, the 11th Circuit said that step is not necessary for the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” question.
The law’s prohibition on overly broad medical exams protects even employees who have no disability, the court said. While the 11th Circuit had not considered that question before, it based its decision on rulings from its sister circuits.
Most of ADA’s provisions protect a “qualified individual” but the section on medical exams refers only to an “employee.” Workers, therefore, need not show that they have a disability and can perform the essential functions of their jobs before challenging an employer’s required exams, the 11th Circuit concluded.
“It makes little sense to require an employee to demonstrate that he has a disability to prevent his employer from inquiring as to whether he has a disability,” the court said, quoting Roe.
Despite Owusu-Ansah clearing the first hurdle, the court determined that Coca-Cola’s request was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
It was job-related because an employee’s ability to handle reasonably necessary stress and work reasonably well with others are essential functions of any position, the court said. For similar reasons, the evaluation also was consistent with business necessity. “Though it may not be one of the traditional canons of statutory construction, common sense is not irrelevant in construing statutes, and in our view an employer can lawfully require a psychiatric/psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation under [ADA] if it has information suggesting that an employee is unstable and may pose a danger to others,” the 11th Circuit said.
Read the full story here.