Dalton v. Ohio Dept. Rehab. & Corr.
2014 Ohio 2658
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert Dalton, an ODRC psychology assistant reinstated after arbitration, expressed paranoid concerns (emails, conversations) about coworkers and investigations after obtaining his psychologist license.
- ODRC requested an independent medical examination (IME) under Ohio Adm.Code 123:1-30-03 to evaluate Dalton's fitness for duty given safety/security concerns; Dalton initially refused objective testing (MMPI-2/MCMI) during the IME.
- Dr. Farrell diagnosed features of a paranoid personality but said a definitive opinion could not be made because Dalton refused objective testing; ODRC removed Dalton for insubordination based on that refusal.
- Dalton pursued grievance/arbitration (which upheld the removal) and then sued ODRC in the Court of Claims alleging perceived disability discrimination and invasion of privacy; ODRC moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for ODRC; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Dalton failed to establish a prima facie perceived-disability claim, ODRC complied with the administrative rule in ordering the IME, and Dalton failed to show invasion-of-privacy material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending Dalton to an IME amounts to being "regarded as" disabled | Sending to IME is evidence ODRC perceived Dalton as mentally impaired | Ordering an IME alone does not show employer regarded employee as disabled | Sending an employee for an IME alone is not evidence the employer perceived the employee as disabled; prima facie element not met |
| Whether Dalton could prove he could safely and substantially perform his job despite perceived disability | Dalton is presumed able to perform his job absent contrary evidence | Dalton refused testing; no evidence he could safely perform essential functions | Dalton failed to produce evidence he could safely and substantially perform essential functions; third prong of prima facie case unmet |
| Whether ODRC complied with Ohio Adm.Code 123:1-30-03 in ordering the IME and whether the rule permits such an exam | Rule only allows exams for disability separation; ODRC lacked authority to order a general fitness-for-duty exam | The rule authorizes supplying facts and job requirements to an examiner and permits requesting an exam to assess possible disability separation; ODRC complied | ODRC complied with 123:1-30-03 by providing facts and job descriptions; the rule does not require a prior determination that the employee is unable to perform duties before ordering an IME |
| Whether there was an actionable invasion of privacy/public disclosure of IME results | IME itself and dissemination of results invaded privacy and caused harm; public disclosure not required to show damage | No widespread/public disclosure; only limited internal review occurred; IME consent/release signed | No genuine issue that IME results were publicly disclosed to the public at large; invasion-of-privacy claims fail (no wrongful public disclosure proven; intrusion claim defeated by compliance with administrative procedures and consent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999) (ordering mental/physical exams does not alone prove employer regarded employee as disabled)
- Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1996) (employer perceiving job-performance problems is not equivalent to regarding employee as unable to care for self or perform job duties)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2007) (recognizing false-light invasion of privacy as a distinct theory)
- Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35 (Ohio 1956) (classic Ohio invasion-of-privacy formulations)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court treatment of "regarded as" disability concept in pre-2008 ADA jurisprudence)