Opinion ID: 3029594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Four Issues Advanced by Ward on Appeal 5

Text: Ward advances three issues which he then suggests should be answered in the affirmative. 5 The first of the four issues raised was limited to the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine, which will be addressed later. 7 Issue Number 2: Did the ADA prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to undergo a post-employment medical examination where the employer has no reasonable belief that any physical or mental health condition was interfering with the employee’s ability to perform the essential duties of his position? The premise of Issue Number 2 is that Merck, the employer, lacked a reasonable belief that Ward had any physical or mental health condition that was interfering with his ability to do his job as a chemist. Issue Number 3: Did the district court commit reversible error in concluding that a claim of retaliation under the ADA is not viable unless the claim is premised on opposition to employer actions that are actually unlawful under the ADA? The premise for this issue is that, even if Merck had a valid basis for requesting the fitness-for-duty examination, Ward is able to maintain a separate claim based on Merck’s decision to terminate Ward’s employment as a form of retaliation for refusal to take the fitness-for-duty examination. Issue Number 4: Does the FMLA prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination where the employer has no reasonable belief that an employee’s ongoing limitations may interfere with his ability to work? In support of Issues Number 2 and Number 4, Ward cites to selected portions of the deposition testimony of Merck’s employees, and contends, at a minimum, the cited testimony undercuts the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Specifically, Ward alleges or points to the following: 8 (1) The deposition testimony of Dr. Cohen that Ward continued to perform the duties of his position. (R.R. A-501)6 (2) Michael Washabaugh gave testimony to the effect that there was no consideration given to requiring Ward to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination when he returned to work from his medical leave in February. (R.R. A-411 to A-412) (3) According to Merck’s employee, Kathy Korsen, Dr. Washabaugh did not believe that any physical or mental condition was potentially restricting Ward in the functions of his job. (R.R. A-584)7 6 The specific testimony, at A-501, follows: Q. How was his work doing?