902 F.3d 916
9th Cir.2018Background
- Holt received a conditional offer from BNSF for Senior Patrol Officer contingent on a post-offer medical review after he disclosed a 2007 two‑level spinal disc extrusion.
- Holt provided prior records and was examined by CHS/Concentra doctors and his PCP, all of whom found no current limitations and no need for follow-up testing.
- BNSF’s medical officer requested a current MRI (and other records) and informed Holt he must obtain the MRI at his own expense or be treated as declining the offer; Holt did not obtain one.
- Holt was in bankruptcy and his insurer would not cover a non‑medically‑necessary MRI; Holt said he could not afford the out‑of‑pocket cost (BNSF disputes the affordability claim).
- EEOC sued under the ADA; district court found liability, awarded damages by agreement, and entered a nationwide injunction requiring BNSF to pay for any additional medical information it deems necessary (or decide based on existing records).
- Ninth Circuit affirmed ADA liability (BNSF perceived Holt as having an impairment and conditioned the offer on applicant‑paid testing), vacated the injunction and remanded for additional factual findings to define appropriate scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BNSF "regarded" Holt as having a disability under the ADAAA | BNSF perceived Holt to have a current back impairment because it treated his prior disc extrusion as an ongoing condition and demanded further testing | BNSF argues it merely had uncertainty and legitimately sought additional information; asking for exams alone ≠ perceiving impairment | Court: BNSF did perceive Holt to have an impairment when it demanded the MRI; ADAAA construed broadly in favor of coverage |
| Whether conditioning employment on applicant‑paid follow‑up testing violates § 12112(a) | Requiring Holt to obtain an MRI at his own cost discriminated on basis of perceived impairment and imposed an extra financial burden tied to disability | BNSF relies on § 12112(d)(3) allowing post‑offer exams and contends it may require such exams (and implicitly that applicant may bear costs) | Court: Permissible to require post‑offer exams, but conditioning additional testing costs on applicants with perceived impairments violates § 12112(a); employer must bear cost when testing is required because of perceived impairment |
| Whether Holt was a "qualified individual" | Holt was qualified; he had comparable law‑enforcement experience and was cleared by examining doctors | BNSF did not contest qualification | Court: Holt was a qualified individual; BNSF had no credible challenge |
| Whether injunctive relief was proper and its scope | EEOC: injunction authorized under Title VII remedies for intentional unlawful employment practices; injunction appropriate to prevent future applicant‑paid testing | BNSF: district court should have applied the traditional four‑factor injunction test and the injunction should not be nationwide without more findings | Court: Injunction permissible (four‑factor test would be satisfied), but remanded to district court to make factual findings to justify and define the injunction’s scope; injunction vacated pending that work |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (no further causation burden needed where action taken because of perceived impairment)
- Lanman v. Johnson County, 393 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2004) (ordering medical exam does not automatically show employer perceived an impairment under pre‑ADAAA framework)
- Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2016) (post‑offer medical testing and hiring timing may result in nonselection without ADA violation where applicants fail to complete required testing)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four‑factor test for injunctive relief commonly applied)
- EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir. 1987) (Title VII courts have issued permanent injunctions for intentional unlawful employment practices)