Todd Kurtzhals v. County of Dunn
969 F.3d 725
7th Cir.2020Background
- Sgt. Todd Kurtzhals (Dunn County Sheriff's Office) threatened a fellow deputy, Dennis Rhead, on April 1, 2016, implying a possible physical altercation in violation of the County Workplace Violence Policy. Several coworkers corroborated Kurtzhals's words.
- Sheriff Dennis Smith placed Kurtzhals on paid administrative leave (≈3 months) and ordered a fitness-for-duty psychiatric evaluation after consulting deputies, HR, county counsel, an outside employment attorney (Mindy Dale), and Dr. Thomas Campion (law-enforcement psychologist).
- The outside attorney concluded Kurtzhals violated policy and recommended reprimand; she advised that a fitness exam was premature, but Sheriff Smith nonetheless ordered the evaluation. Rhead was not disciplined or ordered to undergo an evaluation.
- Kurtzhals has a documented history of PTSD from military service, which he told two supervisors in 2014; there is no competent evidence Sheriff Smith knew of the diagnosis before the April 2016 decision.
- Kurtzhals sued under the ADA, alleging (1) disability discrimination (placement on leave) and (2) unlawful medical inquiry/requirement (fitness-for-duty exam not job-related or consistent with business necessity).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Dunn County; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine dispute that PTSD was the "but-for" cause of the actions and that the fitness exam was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement on paid administrative leave and ordering a fitness-for-duty exam violated ADA §12112(a) (discrimination "on the basis of" disability) | Kurtzhals: County acted because of his PTSD; supervisors knew or relied on his PTSD history | County: action based on misconduct (threat), prior conduct, and safety concerns—not disability | Court: No. Plaintiff failed to show PTSD was the "but-for" cause; summary judgment for County |
| Whether the administrative leave/required exam constituted a materially adverse employment action | Kurtzhals: loss of expected overtime during leave was a materially adverse action | County: he received base pay and some overtime; he returned to same position with only an oral reprimand | Court: At summary-judgment stage the loss of potential overtime could be an adverse action, but causation failed on discrimination claim |
| Whether the fitness-for-duty psychiatric examination violated ADA §12112(d)(4)(A) (not job-related/business necessity) | Kurtzhals: department custom and relatively common heated exchanges made exam unnecessary; outside counsel said exam was overreaction; Rhead was not ordered examined | County: Police work implicates public safety; threat of physical violence made a reasonable, objective belief that his mental condition might impair performance or pose a threat | Court: Exam was job-related and consistent with business necessity given the threat and law-enforcement context; summary judgment for County |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2020) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment in employment cases)
- Monroe v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 871 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) ("but-for" causation discussion in ADA discrimination claims)
- Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements for ADA discrimination claim)
- Graham v. Arctic Zone Iceplex, LLC, 930 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2019) (pretext inquiry focuses on employer's honest belief)
- Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 578 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2009) (fitness-for-duty exam is permissible when employer reasonably believes a medical condition impairs job performance or creates a threat)
- Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2000) (greater leeway for police departments to order fitness-for-duty evaluations)
- Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 1999) (reasonable perception of paranoia/hostility supports fitness-for-duty exam)
- Formella v. Brennan, 817 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2016) (denial of expected overtime can constitute an adverse employment action)