Opinion ID: 744570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADA & Rehabilitation Act Claims

Text: 36 Koepping's discrimination claims under the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were properly dismissed. To survive a summary judgment motion, Koepping would have to show that Tri-Met took an adverse action because of a disability. Doe v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 34 F.3d 781, 784 (9th Cir.1994). His claims are based entirely on the fact that Tri-Met requested that he take a physical exam before starting in the Plant Electrical Mechanic position. 8 Koepping never took the exam, and this did not bar him from serving in the Plant Maintenance Mechanic position that he subsequently accepted. He adduced no evidence that the decision to demote him was related to the exam request for the position he was being transferred into. 37 Koepping claims that the district court did not consider his second claim, that it was discriminatory even to request such an exam, but the district court states: Merely requiring someone to take a physical at the most shows concern for whether the person will be able to handle their new position and not discriminatory motive. 38 Koepping is correct in asserting that under the ADA, a claim lies for a discriminatory demand for a medical exam once an employee enters on duty, unless the exam or inquiry is job-related or consistent with business necessity. 9 However, here, the EEOC found that Tri-Met did not violate the ADA because 1) the request for an exam occurred after he was demoted and before he entered his new job; 2) Koepping never took the exam and no additional adverse action resulted. We agree.