Direct evidence does not compel a trial, but in this case would be sufficient to support a judgment in plaintiff's behalf.Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 566, 30 A.D. Cases 821 (6th Cir. 2014). Panel: COOK, Boggs [GIBBONS, dissenting]. Claim on Appeal: ADA medical examination, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)Disposition Below: Judgment as a matter of law [plaintiff]. Outcome on Appeal: Reversed [defendant].

Can we require employees to complete a health risk assessment which requests personal medical information before they are eligible to participate in the health plan? I’ve heard that asking for employee medical information, even if it’s pursuant to a wellness program, could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.Answer: Though the ADA generally bars medical exams and inquiries absent a showing a “business necessity” under 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A), there exists a “safe harbor” provision in 42 U.S.C. §12201(c)(2) which may allow your company an exemption for such inquiries under the terms of a bona fide benefits plan. The general rule contained in 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A) provides that a “covered entity shall not require a medical examination . . . unless such examination is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

2. Affirmed [defendant]. Grounds: 1. Failure to reasonably accommodate not alleged in complaint (no citation to 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5), nor factual allegations that would give rise to such a claim such as suggested accommodations). Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff did not require accommodations.

The EEOC also alleged that Orion violated the ADA’s anti-retaliation provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) and (b), by instructing the employee not to discuss her concerns about the legality of this requirement with co-workers and by terminating her employment shortly after she voiced opposition to Orion’s wellness program. Orion contended that its requirement that employees who elect to receive health insurance from Orion either participate in the wellness program or pay the full premium amount was lawful under the ADA’s insurance “safe harbor” provision, which allows self-insured organizations to administer benefits plans, or alternatively, that its wellness program is voluntary under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(B). Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Not all of the protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act are limited to disabled persons. The ADA also protects employees from undergoing unconsented medical exams, unless the employer can show that the exam is job-related and consistent with business necessity (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A)). In this Eleventh Circuit case, the panel holds that an employee does not need to be disabled to have standing to bring suit under this section.

The agency telephoned Thrivent pretending to be a prospective employer, and Thrivent disclosed that Messier “has medical conditions where he gets migraines” and “would not call us [to let us know].” Id.Messier subsequently filed a charge with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination under the ADA. The EEOC thereafter filed suit claiming that Thrivent violated the confidentiality provisions contained in 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) by revealing “confidential medical information” about Messier. Id. at 6.

The Sixth Circuit holds in a 2-1 panel decision that an employer's demand that an employee "receive psychological counseling" and "see a mental health counselor as a condition to keeping her employment" may constitute a prohibited "medical examination" under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). The unanimous panel also holds that the employee need not actually submit to the demand to have standing to challenge it.Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance, No. 10-2348 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012): The ADA, in addition to imposing anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation requirements to safeguard the ability of disabled persons to work, also contains prohibitions against certain kinds of medical testing.

It explicitly delineates the specific statutes under the ADA for which punitive and compensatory damages are available. In particular, section 1981a references 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 and 12112(b)(5) of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(2).

A Ninth Circuit panel splits 2-1 over whether requiring a physical capacity evaluation (PCE) for employees returning from medical leave constitutes a prohibited medical examination, or a lawful physical fitness test, under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 08-35278 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2009): The plaintff, who did mill work, took medical leave to recover for injury to her knees.

As noted, Title I of the ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities because of their disabilities, a prohibition that includes failing to reasonably accommodate such individuals. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(5). In contrast to Title VII, it does not prohibit discrimination against any individual on the basis of disability, but, as a general rule, only protects from discrimination those disabled individuals who are able to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of the job they hold or desire.