807 F. Supp. 2d 684
N.D. Ohio2011Background
- Miller sued Whirlpool under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after being discharged for refusing a PIV medical questionnaire.
- Whirlpool implemented a mandatory PIV certification program, including a 34‑question medical form, following a prior OSHA safety citation.
- The form asks about illnesses, injuries, medications, and conditions such as depression, allergies, and other health issues.
- Whirlpool’s medical director testified the questionnaire is designed to assess safe driving with or without accommodations and to diagnose and plan treatment, with access limited to Employee Health Center staff.
- Miller did not allege disability and was never accused of unsafe PIV operation; he was terminated after refusing the form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the questionnaire is a disability-related inquiry under the ADA | Miller argues the form asks about disability symptoms and medications. | Whirlpool contends the inquiry is job-related and necessary for safety. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; not resolved on summary judgment. |
| Whether the inquiry is within the ADA’s business-necessity exception | Questions are too broad to relate to safety. | The form is reasonably necessary to ensure safe PIV operation. | Issue of reasonableness and necessity must be resolved factually. |
| Whether OSHA regulations preclude ADA liability (defense) | OSHA does not mandate the exact content of the medical form. | OSHA compliance could bar liability if necessary. | OSHA does not compel the challenged questions; defense fails. |
| Whether the case should be decided on summary judgment given the evidence | Facts show potential ADA violation should await trial. | The material facts are undisputed and support dismissal. | Denied; issues remain genuine and fact-specific. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. City of Columbus, 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 2011) (disability-related inquiry protections in ADA/ Rehabilitation Act context)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (high business-necessity standard for medical inquiries)
- Scott v. Napolitano, 717 F.Supp.2d 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (some questions found overbroad; summary judgment favored plaintiff in scope of inquiry)
- Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Imp. & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2009) (OSHA generally broad; not necessarily requiring the exact medical form content)
- Murray v. EEOC, 175 F.Supp.2d 1053 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) (unlawful general screening policy not saved by general applicability)