Opinion ID: 73693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prohibited Medical Examination and Inquiries

Text: Watson alleges the fitness for duty and tuberculosis examinations were prohibited medical inquiries, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). That provision states: A covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. This Court has not addressed whether this provision applies to a non-disabled employee. We need not resolve this issue because we conclude the fitness for duty and tuberculosis examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity. Cf. Armstrong v. Turner Industries, Inc., 141 F.3d 554, 558 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding plaintiff did not have standing rather than addressing the difficult issue whether the medical examination and inquiries prohibitions apply to non-disabled employees).
In any case where a police department reasonably perceives an officer to be even mildly paranoid, hostile, or oppositional, a fitness for duty examination is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity. Police departments place armed officers in positions where they can do tremendous harm if they act irrationally. Contrary to Watson’s contention, the ADA does not, indeed cannot, require a police 6 department to forgo a fitness for duty examination to wait until a perceived threat becomes real or questionable behavior results in injuries. The evidence shows the City had good cause for concern as to whether Watson was fit to be a police officer. Watson had overreacted in many situations and his colleagues worried he might be paranoid. On this basis, we conclude there is no evidence from which a rational juror could find the City acted improperly by ordering Watson to undergo the fitness for duty examination.
The EEOC Compliance Manual, which is helpful in a situation such as this, explains that “periodic medical examinations for public safety positions that are narrowly tailored to address specific job-related concerns and are shown to be consistent with business necessity would be permissible.” EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Psychiatric Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act (March 25, 1997), reprinted in 3 EEOC Compliance Manual No. 222: 2336 n.41 (BNA 1998). The evidence presented showed that the tuberculosis examination required by the City in this case addressed unrefuted health concerns regarding officer safety. Additionally, the evidence showed that disclosing one’s HIV/AIDS status as part of the examination is necessary to properly diagnose and treat an individual with 7 tuberculosis.2 Accordingly, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the City acted improperly in testing for tuberculosis and requiring Watson to disclose his HIV/AIDS status as part of the examination.