Sunday, January 23, 2005

Second Circuit and D.C. District on Medical Exams

A couple of opinions on relatively straightforward medical examination issues came out late Friday.

The Second Circuit held (in an ADA Title I case) that requiring an incumbent employee to disclose the results of HIV-related lab tests was "job-related and consistent with business necessity" because the plaintiff had told his employer, in an application for leave under the FMLA, that his medical condition rendered him unable to perform his job functions. The plaintiff couldn't have it both ways by asking his employer to give him leave on the basis of his medical condition but refusing to disclose relevant information about that condition. The case is Gajda v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, and the opinion can be found here.

The District Court for the District of Columbia addressed a claim that the plaintiff's employer (the FBI) violated the Rehabilitation Act by requiring her to submit to a psychological examination. Arguing that the examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity, the defendant sought summary judgment. But the court denied the motion for summary judgment. Noting evidence "that the plaintiff's psychological examination was ordered in violation of FBI regulation," the court concluded that a jury could find that the decision "to require the plaintiff to submit to the evaluation was not solely for the purpose of determining whether she was capable of performing her job." The opinion, Davis v. Ashcroft, 2005 WL 120094 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2005), is not yet available for free on the web.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home