31 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 709
D. Md.2015Background
- Allen, a Baltimore County correctional officer diagnosed with chronic sarcoidosis (since 2000), experienced episodic flare-ups in 2006 and 2010 that impaired walking and required FMLA leave and steroid (Decadron) treatment, which rapidly improved his symptoms.
- In August 2010 Allen returned on light duty as a pod control officer; in December 2010 a director observed slow walking and requested a fitness-for-duty exam after Allen exhausted FMLA.
- County physician Dr. Oroszlan’s January 11, 2011 IME concluded Allen could not safely perform all correctional officer duties and was unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future; the County sent an "options" letter in February 2011 demanding either a transfer to another position or resignation, or risk termination.
- Under pressure, Allen accepted a reassignment/demotion to Correctional Commitment Specialist in March 2011 (16.4% pay cut, change to pension eligibility, shift change), later obtaining a follow-up treating-physician letter asserting improvement and requesting re-evaluation.
- Allen filed an EEOC charge (2011), was later examined under Rule 35 during litigation (2014) and found able to perform correctional officer duties; the County reinstated him to correctional officer status in June 2014.
- The County moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment to County on the ADA medical-exam claim but denied summary judgment on Allen’s ADA illegal discharge/demotion claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen is disabled under the ADA | Allen: chronic sarcoidosis with episodic severe impairments (walking, standing, working) qualifies under ADAAA | County: impairments were episodic/temporary and therefore not a disability | Court: ADAAA applies; episodic/remitting sarcoidosis qualifies when active — Allen is in protected class (denied County SJ on this element) |
| Whether Allen was a "qualified individual" / need for reasonable accommodation | Allen: would have been qualified if given reasonable accommodations (continued light duty, leave, or temporary treatment) | County: Allen could not perform essential functions and posed a direct threat | Held: Genuine dispute exists — County failed to engage in interactive process or consider less intrusive accommodations; direct-threat defense not established (denied SJ) |
| Whether the demotion was an adverse action and voluntary | Allen: options letter coerced "voluntary" demotion; demotion caused pay, pension, shift harm; not truly voluntary | County: demotion was voluntarily accepted | Held: Issue for jury — circumstances permit a finding demotion was involuntary and thus an adverse employment action (denied SJ) |
| Whether the County violated ADA by ordering IME/medical inquiries | Allen: IME was unnecessary/overbroad and not job-related/business necessity | County: IME was job-related and necessary given safety concerns in a correctional facility | Held: IME was job-related and consistent with business necessity; County entitled to summary judgment on medical-exam claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant / drawing inferences)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (definition of "qualified individual" and accommodation analysis)
- Summers v. Altarum Inst., 740 F.3d 325 (ADAAA interpretation; episodic impairments can be disabilities)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (qualifier: genuine dispute on reasonable accommodation and performance)
- Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (employer/employee interactive process and notice of disability)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Serv., 333 F.3d 88 (standard for job-related/business necessity for medical exams)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)