Garlitz v. Alpena Regional Medical Center
834 F. Supp. 2d 668
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Plaintiff Shelly Garlitz, a medical technologist, worked at Alpena Regional Medical Center (Apena) from 1995 to 2007 with generally positive reviews, aside from a 2003 note of interpersonal difficulties.
- May 2007 she left Alpena to complete school and travel; around July 2008 she reapplied for a per diem position and was offered a job contingent on a drug test and a medical examination.
- HealthWise Medical Clinic conducted the preemployment exam under a HealthWise form that included a separate “Females—Please Complete” section asking pregnancy, abortion, birth control, and related questions not asked of men.
- Plaintiff initially refused to answer pregnancy-related questions, asserting they were not relevant to a preemployment physical; a nurse practitioner (Lechel) then required completion of the HealthWise form to pass the exam, which lasted about five minutes and led to an approval for work.
- Plaintiff later received a letter revoking the offer on July 30, 2008, stating it was withdrawn due to denial to complete the requirements; Defendants claim the denial was due to Plaintiff’s attitude, not the questions.
- Plaintiff filed suit in September 2010 asserting ADA, Title VII, ELCRA, and §1983 claims; Defendants moved for summary judgment, with partial denial and partial grant of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a real offer existed and the post-offer medical examination allowed non-job-related inquiries under the ADA | Plaintiff contends a real offer existed and non-medical information was obtainable before the offer. | Defendants argue the offer may not have been real and/or the questions were not part of the permissible post-offer inquiry. | Question of fact on real offer; ADA claim not summary-judgment bar. |
| Whether HealthWise was Alpena’s agent for purposes of Title VII/ELCRA liability | HealthWise acted as Alpena’s agent in preemployment screenings. | HealthWise was an independent vendor; no agency. | Genuine issue of material fact on agency; not entitled to summary judgment on Title VII/ELCRA claims. |
| Whether the ELCRA retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Plaintiff claims retaliation for reporting discrimination. | Defendants argue no retaliatory motive proven. | ELCRA retaliation claim granted for Defendants (summary judgment in favor of Defendants)? |
| Whether the First Amendment retaliation claim under §1983 survives summary judgment | Plaintiff alleges retaliation for expressing concerns about HealthWise questions. | No causal link shown; offer revoked before complaint. | Summary judgment in favor of Defendants on First Amendment retaliation claim. |
| Whether the §1983 privacy claim survives summary judgment | Denied by Defendants (Plaintiff prevails on privacy claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1983) (Pregnancy-related protections under PDA guidance in Title VII)
- Gen. Elec. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1976) (Pregnancy discrimination per PDA evolution)
- O’Neal v. City of New Albany, 293 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2002) (Real offer and post-offer exam scope; non-job-related inquiries)
- Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1997) (Informational privacy inquiry limits)
- Barabano v. Madison Cnty., 922 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1990) (Pregnancy-related inquiry discrimination)
- Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) (Informational privacy and sexual life privacy)