Case Information
*2 Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cheryl Russell, a former dispatcher with the City of Mobile Police
Department, appeals the district court’s grаnt of summary judgment on her claim
that the City of Mobile, Alabama, and Mobile Police Department Lt. Sybil Thomas
(collectively, the “Defendants”) engaged in an improper medical inquiry, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Aсt of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §
12112(d)(4)(A). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants on Russell’s improper medical inquiry claim on thе ground that Russell
failed to show that she suffered any damages or injury as a result of any alleged
improper inquiry. On appeal, Russell disputes the district court’s conclusion,
claiming that she became faint and had to request medical attention as a result of
the allegedly improper medical inquiry.
[1]
After careful review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
all facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Ross v. Clayton Cnty., Ga.,
Thе ADA provides that an employee may “not require a medical
examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such
employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or sevеrity of the
disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and
consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). Notwithstanding
the proscriptions in § 12112(d)(4)(A), an employer may “make inquiries into the
ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.” 42 U.S.C. §
12112(d)(4)(B). An employee may raise a § 12112(d)(4)(A) claim whether or not
she is disabled. Owusu Ansah v. Coca Cola Cо.,
Although we have not published a decision holding that a plaintiff-employee
must show damages or injury in order tо succeed on a § 12112(d)(4)(A) claim, we
have held that plaintiffs raising claims under § 12112(d)(2)(A), a parallel provision
aрplicable to job applicants (as opposed to employees), must show damages --
emotional, pecuniary, or otherwise. Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs. Huntsville, Inc.,
We also agree that in this case, Russell has not shown that the record supports her claim that she suffered any injury or damages from any alleged improper medical inquiry. As a potential injury resulting from the allegedly improper inquiry, Russell points to the heated conversation with Mobile Police Department Lt. Sybil Thomas, alleging that she felt faint and had to request medical attention, but that argument mischaracterizes the record. According to the affidavits of Mobile Policе Department Radio Communications Officers (“RCO”) Brenda Wilks and Gloria Herrine, and of Lt. Thomas, the heated cоnversation with Thomas was unrelated to the medical inquiry, and, rather, concerned an internal complaint that Russell had lodged against another employee. The excerpts from Russell’s deposition in the reсord do not contradict the affidavits. Additionally, although Russell returned to an RCO office later the same day tо request medical attention, nothing in the record suggests that her request for medical attention was relatеd to the allegedly improper inquiry. Thus, Russell has not shown any genuine dispute of material fact concerning аny damages she suffered from any allegedly improper inquiry under § 12112(d)(4)(A). See Harrison, 593 F.3d at 1216-17. [2]
As for Russell’s assertion that a jury should be allowed to decide whether other symptoms that she suffered -- namely, depression and mood changes -- were the proximate result of the alleged § 12112(d)(4) violation, we are unpersuaded. Russell testified that shе suffered those particular symptoms because of her Graves’ disease, and nothing else in the recоrd suggests that she suffered depression or any other malady because of the alleged § 12112(d)(4)(A) violation. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Russell failed to show that she suffered any injury or dаmages as a result of the alleged § 12112(d)(4)(A) violations.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
[1] Russell raised numerous ADA-related claims below, but on appeal, her arguments focus
entirely upon the denial of her improper inquiry claim under § 12112(d)(4)(A). Therefore, she
has abandoned any argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her
other claims. See Hamilton v. Southlаnd Christian Sch., Inc.,
[2] Russell also suggests, in the facts section of her brief, that, on July 14, 2009, the paramedics provided a copy of her medical report to her supervisors. Even if true, however, Russell would still have to prove that she suffered damages or injury as a result of the improper inquiry, which she has not done. See id.