Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. McLeod Health, Inc.
914 F.3d 876
4th Cir.2019Background
- Cecilia Whitten, a longtime McLeod Health employee with a congenital mobility impairment, worked as an internal newsletter editor for 28 years and sometimes fell at work.
- In 2012 she fell three times (one at work causing minimal injury). Her manager reported concerns about tardiness, missed deadlines, and apparent fatigue/grogginess to HR.
- Occupational Health required a fitness‑for‑duty exam; a nurse practitioner referred Whitten for a functional‑capacity evaluation by an occupational therapist, who concluded she posed a high fall risk and recommended travel and mobility restrictions.
- McLeod placed Whitten on leave, denied her return to the position (saying her requested accommodations would undermine the job), and ultimately terminated her after six months on leave.
- The EEOC sued under the ADA, alleging (1) McLeod unlawfully required a medical exam without objective basis, and (2) McLeod discharged Whitten because of her disability; the district court granted summary judgment for McLeod, and the EEOC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLeod lawfully required a medical exam under the ADA | EEOC: No objective evidence showed Whitten couldn’t perform essential job functions or posed a direct threat; exam unlawful | McLeod: Reasonable, objective basis (falls, manager observations) to believe Whitten posed a direct threat to her safety | Reversed: triable issues exist on whether campus navigation was an essential function and whether employer reasonably believed a direct threat existed; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether navigating to/within campuses was an essential job function | EEOC: Not essential; job description omitted travel requirement and remote/phone work could substitute | McLeod: Essential—job required in‑person interviews and travel to multiple campuses | Question for jury: evidence supports both sides, so issue cannot be decided on summary judgment |
| Whether McLeod reasonably believed Whitten posed a direct threat before ordering exam | EEOC: Employer lacked objective evidence—past long performance and minimal workplace injury undercut belief | McLeod: Recent falls and supervisor observations justified requirement of exam | Reversed: reasonable jury could find McLeod’s belief unreasonable given the record; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Whitten was a "qualified individual" and was wrongfully discharged | EEOC: With or without reasonable accommodation, Whitten could perform essential functions; termination was disability‑based | McLeod: Laliberte’s report showed direct threat and no reasonable accommodation would permit safe performance; termination justified | Reversed: material disputes about essential functions and lawfulness of the exam make summary judgment inappropriate; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment and framing of facts for non‑movant)
- EEOC v. Stowe–Pharr Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373 (4th Cir.) (elements for ADA wrongful‑discharge claim)
- Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Americas Corp., 885 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) (quantity of evidence required to defeat summary judgment)
- Porter v. U.S. Alumoweld Co., 125 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) (use of EEOC guidance in ADA analyses)
- Wright v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 798 F.3d 513 (7th Cir.) (courts applying EEOC enforcement guidance on medical exams)
- Owusu‑Ansah v. Coca‑Cola Co., 715 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.) (similar reliance on EEOC guidance when evaluating disability‑related inquiries)