Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 636 F.3d 245

Background

This is a class action by current/former Columbus Police Division employees challenging Directive 3.07 § III(H)(1)(c).
Directive 3.07(H)(1)(c) requires returning employees to submit a physician’s note stating the nature of the illness to their immediate supervisor.
Plaintiffs allege the directive violates the Rehabilitation Act and constitutional privacy rights via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims and issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the directive.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction, reversed, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the City on the Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims.
The City’s appeal centers on whether the directive’s broad disclosure to supervisors is permissible under ADA/Rehabilitation Act and whether the § 1983 privacy claim survives.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the directive's disclosure to supervisors violate § 12112(d)(4)(A) of the ADA incorporated into the Rehabilitation Act?	Lee argues the general diagnosis disclosure to supervisors is a prohibited disability-related inquiry.	Columbus contends the directive is a universal policy, not a disability-specific inquiry, and thus permissible.	No; the directive does not trigger § 12112(d)(4)(A) as to whether an employee is disabled.
Is the directive an adverse employment action under Rehabilitation Act discrimination standards?	Plaintiffs contend the disclosure and burden constitute discrimination based on disability.	City asserts no adverse action because the policy is universal and safeguards exist.	No; the directive is a permissible policy and does not prove sole discriminatory motivation.
Does the declaration of a § 1983 privacy violation lie where disclosure is to immediate supervisors?	Best/Bowman claim unwarranted invasion of privacy of medical information.	Disclosures are not constitutional privacy violations given non-fundamental privacy standard and safeguards.	No; informational privacy under the Constitution requires a fundamental right or explicit constitutional harm.
Should the district court have issued an injunction against enforcement of Directive 3.07(H)(1)(c)?	Court should preserve injunctive relief based on likely constitutional/privacy violations.	Directive is a valid, uniform policy and injunction is unwarranted.	Vacated; remanded for judgment in City’s favor on Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims.

Key Cases Cited

Conroy v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Services, 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (held that general diagnoses may trigger ADA protections when they reveal disabilities)
Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rehabilitation Act discrimination framework includes disability causation elements)
Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (informational privacy or protective interest standards in privacy cases)
Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) (informational privacy interest recognized in fundamental-right contexts)