910 F.3d 399
8th Cir.2018Background
- Janice Hustvet was an employee of Courage Center; after a 2013 merger she was to become an Allina employee contingent on completing a pre-placement health screen (immunity testing including rubella) and a respirator medical evaluation (RME) for staff with client contact.
- Hustvet tested non-immune to rubella, refused MMR vaccination (citing allergies/chemical sensitivities and prior mumps/measles), and did not complete the RME; she asked about a rubella-only vaccine but none was available.
- Allina informed Hustvet completion of the assessment and immunization were employment conditions; after she failed to comply Allina terminated her employment, characterizing it as voluntary resignation for failure to finish required forms and vaccination.
- Hustvet sued under the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for unlawful medical inquiry/examination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to Allina and dismissed with prejudice.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held Allina’s health screen was permissible under the ADA and MHRA, Hustvet failed to show she was disabled for accommodation purposes or that requested accommodation related to any disability, and she failed to show pretext for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of health-screen/inquiry (ADA & MHRA) | Allina impermissibly required medical inquiry/exam before/without a valid offer or as an improper post-hire medical exam | Health screen was a lawful post-offer/entrance exam and, even if post-hire, job-related and consistent with business necessity | Health screen permissible under ADA §12112(d) and MHRA; summary judgment for Allina affirmed |
| Failure-to-accommodate | Hustvet requested exemption from rubella immunization due to allergies/chemical sensitivities and prior seizures | Allina says no disability shown and requested accommodation unrelated to any known disability | Hustvet did not prove she was disabled under ADA/MHRA or that requested accommodation related to a disability; claim fails |
| Retaliation | Refusing the health screen/immunization was protected opposition; termination was retaliatory | Termination resulted from legitimate, non-retaliatory policy enforcement (failure to complete assessment / immunize) | No evidence of pretext; termination lawful; retaliation claims fail |
| Scope/class justification for screening | N/A (argues Allina overbroad) | Allina: class (client-contact employees) reasonably defined to protect vulnerable patients; screening effective | Court: class and tests were job-related and reasonably tailored to reduce infection risk; requirement upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.) (standards for medical inquiries under ADA and tangible-injury requirement)
- Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp., 839 F.3d 717 (8th Cir.) (employer may require medical testing when job-related and consistent with business necessity)
- Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516 (8th Cir.) (applicants may challenge unlawful medical inquiries under §12112(d))
- Peyton v. Fred’s Stores of Ark., Inc., 561 F.3d 900 (8th Cir.) (elements for employer failure-to-engage-in-interactive-process)
- Kelleher v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 817 F.3d 624 (8th Cir.) (reasonable-accommodation standard under ADA)
- Product Fabricators, Inc. v. EEOC, 763 F.3d 963 (8th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for ADA retaliation claims)
- Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc., 844 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.) (application of retaliation standards under ADA and MHRA)