Emily Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority
691 F.3d 809
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Kroll, an EMT at WLAA, faced concerns about her well-being after a workplace incident and romantic involvements; WLAA directed counseling for Kroll as a condition to continue employment.
- Dresen and Binns communicated to Kroll that counseling should be pursued, with WLAA monitoring attendance and potentially funding through external programs.
- Kroll disputed that the counseling order targeted mental health and questioned whether it was a medical examination under §12112(d)(4)(A).
- WLAA moved for summary judgment arguing counseling is not a medical examination; the district court granted summary judgment for WLAA.
- Kroll appealed, arguing standing and the legal meaning of medical examination; the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The case centers on whether psychological counseling instructed by an employer qualifies as a medical examination under the ADA and whether Kroll has standing to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counseling amounts to a medical examination under ADA | Kroll argues counseling is medical examination under §12112(d)(4). | WLAA argues counseling is not a medical examination. | Yes; counseling could be a medical examination under the ADA. |
| Whether Kroll has standing to sue for ADA violations | Kroll suffered termination proximate to counseling order. | WLAA argues lack of injury since counseling occurred per policy. | Kroll has Article III standing due to termination injury. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the medical-examination issue | Record construed in Kroll’s favor shows possible medical-exam. | Counseling is not a medical examination, so no §12112(d)(4) violation. | Summary judgment improper; remand for factual development on job-relatedness/business necessity. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Prevo's Family Mkt., Inc., 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir.1998) (limits on medical examinations; test purpose and business necessity)
- Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir.2005) (MMPI as medical examination; mental-health impairment reveal)
- Armstrong v. Turner Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d 554 (5th Cir.1998) (discussion on standing for preemployment contexts)
- Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591 (10th Cir.1998) (injury-in-fact as element for §12112(d) standing)
- Indergard v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 582 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009) (distinguishes physical vs. mental health examinations)