552 F. App'x 905
11th Cir.2014Background
- Cheryl Russell, former dispatcher for Mobile Police Department, sues over allegedly improper ADA medical inquiry under §12112(d)(4)(A).
- District court granted summary judgment to City and Lt. Thomas, holding no damages shown from the inquiry.
- Plaintiff claimed the inquiry caused her to feel faint and seek medical attention.
- Court reviews summary judgment de novo and applies Rule 56 standards.
- ADA prohibition on medical inquiries is subject to a job-related, business-necessity exception; plaintiffs may rely on parallel provisions with damages requirements.
- Court holds no genuine dispute on damages; record shows no linkage between inquiry and any injury; summary judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages required for §12112(d)(4)(A) claim? | Russell argues damages need not be shown. | Defendants rely on Harrison applying damages to §12112(d)(4)(A) as precedent. | Damages required; affirmed ruling on damages. |
| Did Russell suffer injury from the improper inquiry? | Yes, she became faint and needed medical care. | Record shows the heated talk was about an internal complaint, not the inquiry; later medical request unrelated. | No genuine dispute of material fact; no injury from the inquiry. |
| Is there a causal link between the inquiry and depression/mood changes? | Depression/mood changes proximate to the violation. | Symptoms attributed to Graves’ disease, not the violation. | No evidence these symptoms stem from the §12112(d)(4) violation; district court proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owusu Ansah v. Coca Cola Co., 715 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2013) (parallel statutory provision; damages may be required for related claims)
- Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010) (damages required for §12112(d)(2)(A); applicable to §12112(d)(4)(A) claims as parallel)