Velma Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc.
767 F.3d 566
6th Cir.2014Background
- Dura implemented a 2007 substance-abuse policy at its Lawrenceburg, Tennessee facility, enabling drug testing of employees.
- FFS, a third-party tester, conducted plant-wide urine tests and reported machine-restricted medications to Dura after confirmatory testing and MRO review.
- Dura instructed positive testers to discontinue machine-restricted medications, disregarding MRO revisions that could negate results.
- Plaintiffs were terminated after positive retests; they alleged ADA violations under § 12112(d)(4)(A) and sought damages, including punitive damages.
- The district court initially favored plaintiffs on the (d)(4) claim; on appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for trial on whether the testing was a medical examination or disability inquiry.
- The case proceeded to trial in 2011, with post-trial motions addressing the (d)(4) classification, damages, and jury instructions; the district court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the drug test is a medical examination or disability inquiry | Dura's protocol reveals health information via MRO data and disclosures. | Testing does not seek medical impairment information; EEOC guidance is not dispositive. | Genuine factual questions exist; remand for trial on regulated conduct under (d)(4). |
| Whether (b)(6) or (d)(4) governs the claim | Policy affects all employees; (d)(4) protects even non-disabled. | Under (b)(6) only disabled individuals may prevail; no standing for non-disabled. | (d)(4) governing claim; noted (b)(6) premise not controlling here. |
| Whether the district court erred in jury instruction on agency | FFS's role may render Dura responsible for disclosed information. | Do not assume agency; instruct to focus on whether testing was medical examination or disability inquiry. | Remand to tailor instructions reflecting EEOC guidance and remaining liability issue. |
| Whether the justification (business necessity) finding supports damages | Evidence supports a reasonable belief that testing was job-related and necessary. | Jury could find lack of job-relatedness and business necessity. | Evidence supports the jury verdict; affirmed denial of new trial on this issue. |
| Whether statutory damages and punitive damages are available | § 12112(d)(4) claims are compensable under ADA damages and punitive damages could apply. | Damages limited by scope of ADA violations for disabled employees; punitive must reflect liability. | Statutory damages affirmed; punitive damages reversed and remanded with liability remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283 (6th Cir.2010) (limited standing under (b)(6) to disabled plaintiffs)
- EEOC v. Prevo’s Family Mkt., Inc., 135 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir.1998) (disability-related inquiries and medical examinations framework)
- Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 691 F.3d 809 (6th Cir.2012) (test-design factor in medical examination inquiry analysis)
- Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir.2011) (enforcement guidance on disability-related inquiries and health information)
- Scott v. Napolitano, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (S.D. Cal.2010) (preemployment disability-related questionnaire considerations)
- Connolly v. First National Bank, not provided in text (not provided) (mentioned regarding the scope of medical examinations)