Opinion ID: 708160
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Getting Along

Text: 67 First, Grenier argues that Cyro's letter requiring a medical certification constituted an impermissible inquiry because the request was not for information about how he would perform the job-related functions. Rather than ask whether he possessed the requisite skills to perform the electrical and electronic tasks called for in the job description, Grenier complains, Cyro assumed that his ability to perform job related functions was called into question by his history of mental illness. Grenier argues that Cyro already had knowledge that he was able to do the essential job-related functions because he had worked there for nine years and was technically qualified. 68 Grenier incorrectly assumes that the essential functions of the job of shift electrician require only technical ability and experience as an electrician. The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.2(n)(1). Technical skills and experience are not the only essential requirements of a job. See Pesterfield v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 941 F.2d 437, 441-42 (6th Cir.1991) (at least the ability to get along with supervisors and co-workers was essential function of job as tool room attendant); Mancini v. General Electric Co., 820 F.Supp. 141, 147 (D.Vt.1993) (ability to follow the orders of superiors is an essential function of any position); Pickard v. Widnall, 1994 WL 851282,  9 (S.D.Ohio, Dec. 15, 1994) (No. C-3-94-40) (mental and emotional stability was essential job function for military position); Johnston v. Morrison, 849 F.Supp. 777, 778 (N.D.Ala.1994) (waitress who was unable to handle pressures of working on crowded nights or memorizing frequent menu changes was unable to perform essential functions of job); cf. Bento v. I.T.O. Corp. of Rhode Island, 599 F.Supp. 731, 742-43 (D.R.I.1984) (although there is no question that plaintiff ... is qualified to do the job, at least in the sense of knowing how to perform it, he is not necessarily otherwise qualified within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act). 69 More specifically, an employer may reasonably believe that an employee known to have a paranoia about the plant manager is not able to perform his job. Cf. Voytek v. University of California, 1994 WL 478805,  15, 6 A.D.D. 1137, 1161 (N.D.Cal., Aug. 25, 1994) (No. C-9203465 EFL) (holding that employee was legally denied re-employment after period of disability where he could not continue to perform all of the tasks assigned to him, due in part to the ongoing conflict with his supervisor). 70 The ADA does not require an employer to wear blinders to a known disability at the pre-offer stage, but permits an interactive process beneficial to both the employer and applicant. The EEOC regulations recognize this by providing that an employer can ask an applicant with a known disability to describe or demonstrate how with or without reasonable accommodation the applicant will be able to do the job. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.14(a). Here, Cyro knew that the applicant had just recently been unable to perform his specific job at Cyro as a result of a mental disability for which he was still receiving benefits from Cyro and undergoing psychiatric treatment. Indeed, Grenier himself had claimed he was totally disabled from performing any work, not just his specific job at Cyro. Cf. August v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 981 F.2d 576, 581-82 (1st Cir.1992) (man who had asserted on insurance forms that he was totally disabled and had presented no contrary evidence could not be found to be qualified handicapped person under Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 151B); Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 859 F.Supp. 963, 969 (E.D.N.C.1994) (woman who certified to her disability insurer that she could not perform her job was estopped from asserting that during the same time period she had been qualified to perform for purposes of the ADA). We hold that this employer did not violate the prohibition in Sec. 12112(d) by inquiring into Grenier's ability to function effectively in the workplace and to get along with his co-workers and supervisor, rather than just his technical qualifications as an electrician. 4