Opinion ID: 848724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: case-by-case analysis is required

Text: In formulating its opinion, the majority considers the job requirements for a department's police officers in general terms. The consideration should be focused, instead, case by case, on the essential functions of an officer in the plaintiff's position. Other courts reviewing ADA claims against law enforcement agencies have taken the latter approach. For example, in Champ v. Baltimore Co., [24] the plaintiff did not prevail because the defendant showed that he could not perform essential duties that actually were required of all officers. Plaintiff had lost the complete use of one arm and could not drive a vehicle under emergency conditions or effectuate a forcible arrest. He was not proficient with a firearm. The department provided evidence that all officers were subject to reassignment at any time and that nonpatrol officers actually were reassigned to patrol in emergencies. Similarly, in Shoemaker v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm., [25] the court considered the small size of the police department and the actual duties of its officers in determining that all officers were required to perform patrol work. Plaintiff could not do that work. In Dorris v. Kentwood, [26] a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary disposition in favor of the defendant police department. There, the officer offered evidence that his position as an in-school instructor did not require the strenuous physical exertion demanded of a patrol officer. In each of the cases, the department was obligated to come forward with evidence that in practice all of its officers were required to perform the activities that it demanded of the plaintiff. The proper factual analysis is set forth at 29 CFR pt 1630.2(n). The trial court in this case failed to engage in that analysis. Rather, it decided that public policy considerations required that defendant be insulated from judicial review of the essential functions that it had established for its officers. It ignored that plaintiff has raised a question of fact regarding whether those functions were uniformly applied to all officers.