Further, the facts that Porter's job required lifting and pulling, and that he had encountered problems carrying out his job due to back problems even before the surgery, indicate that the requested fitness for duty exam was indeed job- related and necessary to determine if he could carry out his duties. The reasoning of several of our sister circuits is consistent with our endorsement of the plain language of the EEOC regulations. We concur in the reasoning of these cir- cuits. Two additional aspects of ADA analysis require a brief mention. Doe v. Univ. of Maryland Med.
Porter offers no other evidence of disability.
Oddly, Porter actually claims that he is not disabled while simulta- neously attempting to prove an ADA violation. B. Porter next asserts that Alumoweld violated the FMLA by requir- ing him to undergo the fitness for duty exam. Porter fails to recognize that the FMLA certification is a health verification distinct from the ADA- prescribed exam. White v. York Int'l. Porter's only evidence that he was fired due to his workers' com- pensation claim is his own affidavit stating that Alumoweld told him the company's workers' compensation carrier had required the fitness for duty examination.