Opinion ID: 43704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Medical Test Retaliation Claim

Text: Roberts also argues that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to Rayonier’s request that he submit to an impermissible “medical 21 examination” in violation of the ADA.6 The relevant provision is § 12112(d)(4)(A), which 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). The district court did not discuss this claim separately from the accommodation retaliation claim. Indeed, the district court only addressed the claim implicitly in its conclusory statement that “this Court need not address Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment since the above conclusions were reached.” In light of our reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the accommodation retaliation claim, and specifically our ruling on Rayonier’s mixed motive defense, we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of 6 Roberts suggests rather vaguely on appeal that his medical test claim is somewhat broader, encompassing not only the claim that he was fired in retaliation for opposing the medical test, but also a simple challenge to the validity of the test. For example, he suggested at oral argument that he incurred pain and suffering damages, wholly apart from any damages resulting from the termination, because of the requirement that he submit to the medical test. Although we have some doubt as to whether he fairly presented such a claim to the district court, we leave the matter to the district on remand to determine whether Roberts preserved any such claim, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to entertain same. 22 Rayonier on the medical test retaliation claim and remand the claim for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.7