Emily Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 763 F.3d 619

Kroll, an EMT for White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA) since 2003, had a tumultuous affair with a married coworker, Easton.
After the breakup, coworkers observed increased emotional volatility and at least one incident of yelling and crying at work.
Kroll allegedly engaged in unsafe driving and communication lapses, including a claim of using her cell phone while driving, though she denies it.
WLAA, through Director Binns, demanded that Kroll undergo counseling, threatening continued employment only if she complied; no psychologist was consulted before ordering counseling.
Kroll refused to pay for therapy, turned in WLAA equipment, and ceased shifts; WLAA later filed suit seeking summary judgment arguing counseling was a job-related medical examination.
On remand from an earlier reversal, the district court again granted summary judgment; the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding material disputes about business necessity and job-relatedness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counseling was a medical examination under the ADA	Kroll maintains counseling constitutes a medical exam.	WLAA contends counseling is a medical exam permissible under ADA if job-related.	Dispute remains; counseling could be a medical exam.
Whether counseling was job-related and consistent with business necessity	Kroll’s behavior did not impair essential functions; counseling not needed for business necessity.	Binns had objective concerns that Kroll’s emotional issues endangered job performance and safety.	Genuine dispute of material fact; not entitled to summary judgment.
Whether the decision to require counseling was based on medical judgment or moral views	Decision lacked medical basis and rested on private moral judgments.	Decision grounded in business safety concerns and Kroll’s conduct.	Jury could find lack of medical-judgment basis; remand warranted.

Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999) (employer may compel exam if employee's ability to perform essential functions is impaired)
Prevo’s Family Mkt., Inc. v., 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 1998) (direct-threat assessment and medical judgment standards)
Conroy v. New York Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (business-necessity standard requires objective basis for exam necessity)
Estate of Mauro v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 137 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 1998) (medical judgment and evidence-based analysis in exam decisions)
Wurzel v. Whirlpool Corp., 482 F. App’x 1 (6th Cir. 2012) (objective evidence standard for business-necessity determinations)
Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasizes genuine-doubt standard for impairment of essential functions)