she brought the action under a somewhat obscure provision of the americans with disabilities act prohibiting inquiry's or medical examinations on whether an individual has a disability alas it shown to be job related required by a business that damaged by the earlier when judges you perceptively get asked a good question because the lavers grievance resolved it transferred or from traffic safety to day labor or and said that nothing could be no reference could be made again to those examinations or the conduct in traffic safety so you're correct what we're looking at are the december a examination of dr killing the killing in the decision to send them out and then he later when in may where she was sent out the i took the deposition of stuart who was her supervisor he did not know who made the decision nor could he give the reasons for the decision there was a ten page complaint from the only extensive evidence that her behaviors were causing series disruptions in the work life of her coworkers so i mean look at ten that disruptions to other workers cannot be used to justify a medical examination no but it also asked to be related to the job and her job was when she went to day labor is these are the laborers we see on the highways so in the summer they're up to about eight hundred and painter and with the assistance of kelly processed all eight hundred applications payroll  did all that work toward and then it went down in the winter to third there were about ten other people doing other things and a labor come up i think you know maybe she's technically  sending her off for an exam unless there is some evidence that the complaints by the code workers were as sham well your honor the evidence that subjective that's there is she didn't have interaction is that if she was working out front and they'd pass or going to the restroom or someplace else that she did not work and i was the significant objective fact that was never consider and that's what the basis of the appeal is is that yeah the other workers were having complaints about well why are they over with the processing of these day labor applicants for the workers they come in every year they had other things to do how much interaction could there possibly be when she's sitting at a desk doing  exposure that if they're doing their job they should have adversary limited exposure to what i'm saying is that those complaints could not have been significant because there wasn't sufficient time to be to be exposed to and of course the other obvious response for supervisor is what are you talking about paper for you don't work with or stay away from and the other factor in this case it shows a even her you know representative was a friend of her reported her to the illinois state which they found nothing and of course the union representative got removed for violation of his duties representation for that what it comes back to is her job function was to do the processing and the the burden is on the employer and we never heard anything from stout about exactly what the facts for this came out are and some of those problems your honor were with traffic safety where she interacted with a lot of she any time she got any question about anybody she sent it out to a doctor well that's a statutory prohibited inquiry that the state of illinois violating regularly the reason is understandable she generally deals with employee assistance program has walked confidential and so she's naturally being helpful but that's a different style entirely different standard for what she's doing here i got a few minutes  one person was it a committee do we know it is a collective process here on or mostly that process for fitness for duty examinations at the department of transportation starts with gathering employees statements and those statements go through the supervisors and then on to the fitness for duty ordinator robinson and then the fitness for duty ordinator provides a statement to a medical review officer at the department of transportation and that individual  a medical doctor they can determine next steps such as whether a fitness for duty examination is necessary or it there some sort of reasonable accommodation and it was the medical officer here who orders the examination but it was mostly a collective complaints of bizarre behavior before the transfer but as i understand it we're focusing on the two examinations by dr killian which occurred after her transfer within the department absolutely so i would first like to point out that dr first examination was actually based on our own from her second goodness for duty examination when she was still in the traffic safety division and so at that point painter was yelling at her coworkers she yelled at one until she cried fifty one of the record she wrote the employee was told that her house was possessed the painter began to yell at her she threw her hands up in the air and she actually came towards her and was angry and ranting and that employee was so scared that after the incident she asked a guard to walker out at night once painter was transferred to the day labor division an employee reported that painter was continuously yelling in the office that employee on page eleven of two of the record said that she was fearful of retribution from painter and that she had a quote gut feeling about painter that made that employee actually seek out other arrangements for her carpool to pick her up at night because she left work at the same time as painter painter was also getting into alter cations with her supervisor and yelling matches with her coworkers in addition she was engaging and that workplace behavior that really inhibited the essential functions of her job as an office administrator and day labor painter was making a personal work log of every interaction she had with every single individual in the office in the record the spans over forty single spaced pages and it outlines minute by minute her activities her conversations who did what and she did this throughout twenty eleven in two thousand and twelve and her supervisor actually reported and his m on page eleven zero five of the record that he was uncomfortable with us law because when he would ask her to do a task she would respond i'll let you know as soon as i check my notes in my log or all do that as soon as i finish my notes and so this sort of personal note taking was actually interfering with her ability to get work done including her actual work and her supervisor said that they had deadlines coming up for  paper and personnel were they were being inhibited by ms painters behaviors and edition ms painter was also sending oh my e mails nonsensically to her supervisor in the middle of the night her supervisor reported that he would get e mails from her from ten pm to five am that would cause his blackberry to paying in the middle of the night when he was asleep they were often nonsensical and her supervisor had to actually take time out of his schedule to deal with p behavior he had to create personnel issues memorandum about her behavior on a day to day basis and interview other coworkers about their interactions with painter and the record is replete with logs from her supervisor about her behavior her changing moods and her aggressiveness towards her supervisor and other employees thus the department's requests for if it is for duty examination was job related  circuit it's an employer just needs to provide objective evidence that employees behavior because a reasonable person to ask if they could perform the essential functions of their job under the business honesty standard and the eleventh williams versus motorola is very instructive here it notes that employees ability to handle reasonably necessary workplace stress as well as work of reasonably well with others are essential functions of any position and that a concern for the safety of fellow employees for the public at large can also constitute a basis necessity and here painter was unable to work reasonably well but others or handled workplace stress as we discussed she was yelling at her fellow coworkers the coworker who had a cubicle adjacent to her in the traffic safety division noted that painter appeared to be extremely paranoid and exhibited compulsive behavior habits and she would try to avoid painters arguments and would come in after the staff had arrived her safety in numbers what is your evidence that she presented a danger to her co who didn't want to be around painter because they scared her and then also the business since that's the standard says that the department does not need to wait for a threat to actually materialize before they move to protect the safety of fellow employees or painters union representative and here the union representative who knew painter best who was on her side actually perceived her email to him in which she said that something w around here all right was an actual threat m r prior to an investigation and that most certain only was serious enough to warrant the fitness for duty examination so the fact that employees were fearful of pain te youth representative was fired because of sending this request to the illinois state police your honor i'm not sure about that that wasn't reflected in the record the only thing that the department was concerned about was the fact that the e mail was sense that the union representative was fearful and that the illinois state police had to actually investigate the matter and edition and that apartment had all of the correct not to my knowledge i would also like to take an opportunity to discuss the mischaracterization of croll the cruel standard that counsel was referring to was that an employer did not teach to identify be exact person who ordered the examination to be a bit necessary but actually the cold holding is consistent with common and an employer just needs to produce objective evidence that a medical examination is both job related and consistent with the business and society so there needs to be a reasonable belief that the employee cannot perform the job or that the employee threatens the safety of other employees and here the department met that standard because painters behavior inhibited the department's ability to do its work the department's decision and created an unsettling work environment for an employee's department's decision it was all job related examination will be expunged from a personal record that the only reason i brought that up was show the inability of i diot to take no for an answer because each of those three examples came up no mental health and then dr killian's came up with no mental health the record does not show i don't know whether the union representative judge or o'connor was fired for saying the union representative was removed from painter's case of someone else took it over and successfully resolved her union grievance so very different from what you said in your opening remarks i'm sorry if i overstated that basically to me it was he was removed i don't know i didn't follow to you in politics what happened after he was removed