WILLIAM WATSON, Plаintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 98-4163
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
May 28, 1999
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
D. C. Docket No. 96-2281-CIV-DMM. [PUBLISH]
Appellant Watson has been a police officer with the City of Miami Beach since 1984. In May or June 1995, Major Steve Robbins, then the Commander of the Administration Bureau, became increasingly concerned about what he perceived to be Watson‘s display of unusually defensive and antagonistic behаvior towards his co-workers and supervisors. As a result, he began an investigation. Major Robbins’ investigation revealed 10 Internal Affairs’ investigations of complaints by аnd against Watson, as well as 11 incidents from 1992 to 1995 including a disciplinary action and various grievances by Watson against the Police Department.
In July 1995, another incident occurred at Mount Sinai Hospital (Mount Sinai). At that time, Mount Sinai Hospital was conducting a mandatory, department-wide tuberculosis testing program for the Police Department due to police contact with high risk individuals. As part of the tuberculosis examination, Mount Sinai required an individual to disclose his or her HIV/AIDS status because diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis differ for those individuals with HIV/AIDS. On July 24, 1995, Watson went to Mount Sinai, but refused to take the examination because it required him to disclose his HIV/AIDS status. Watson complained the City was out to get him. Nurse Tibbits, the manager of employee health services at Mount Sinai, found his behavior
Based on Major Robbins’ investigation of Watson‘s pattern of conduct and confrontation with Nurse Tibbits, the City relieved Watson of duty with pay on October 9, 1995 and required him to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation with Dr. Axelbred. Dr. Axelbred found Watson was “somewhat obsessional in style and experiencing symptoms typically associated with stress.” Dr. Axelbred recommended Watson return to work with appropriate stress management counseling. Watson returned to work eight days later and continues to work as a police officer for the City.
II. ANALYSIS
We review a district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. Mayfield v. Patterson Pump Co., 101 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 1996). Summаry judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgmеnt as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting
Watson contends the City discriminated against him by relieving him from duty pending a fitness for duty examination, in violation of
Watson failed to present any evidence from which a rational juror could find he was regarded as having a mental impairment. Watson points to evidеnce which shows other officers regarded him as “paranoid,” “disgruntled,” “oppositional,” “difficult to interact with,” “unusual,” “suspicious,” “threatening,” and “distrustful.” These charаcterizations of Watson‘s behavior merely show he had serious personality conflicts with members of his department. Such conflicts do not rise to the levеl of a mental impairment under the ADA. See Stewart v. County of Brown, 86 F.3d 107, 111 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that an excitable, emotionally imbalanced individual is not disabled under the ADA). We affirm the district court‘s grant of summary judgmеnt in favor of the City under
Watson alleges the fitness for duty and tuberculosis examinations were prohibited medical inquiries, in violation of
A covered entity shall 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 severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
This Court has not addressed whether this provision applies to a non-disabled employee. We need not resolve this issue because we conclude the fitness for duty and tuberculosis examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity. Cf. Armstrong v. Turner Industries, Inc., 141 F.3d 554, 558 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding plaintiff did not have standing rather than addressing the difficult issue whether the medical examination and inquiries prohibitions apply to non-disabled employees).
1. Fitness for Duty Examination
In any case where a police department reasonably perceives an officer to be even mildly paranoid, hostile, or oppositional, a fitness for duty examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Police departments place armed officers in positions where they can do tremendous harm if they act irrationally. Contrary to Watson‘s contention, the ADA does not, indeed сannot, require a police
The evidence shows the City had good cause for concern as to whether Watson was fit to be a police officer. Watson had overreacted in many situations and his colleagues worried he might be paranoid. On this basis, we conclude there is no evidence from which а rational juror could find the City acted improperly by ordering Watson to undergo the fitness for duty examination.
2. Tuberculosis Examination
The EEOC Compliance Manual, which is helpful in a situatiоn such as this, explains that “periodic medical examinations for public safety positions that are narrowly tailored to address specific job-rеlated concerns and are shown to be consistent with business necessity would be permissible.” EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Psychiatric Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act (March 25, 1997), reprinted in 3 EEOC Compliance Manual No. 222: 2336 n.41 (BNA 1998). The evidence presented showed that the tuberculosis examination required by the City in this case addressed unrefuted health concerns regarding officer safety. Additionally, the evidence showed that disclosing one‘s HIV/AIDS status as part of the examination is nеcessary to properly diagnose and treat an individual with
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the record in this case, Watson is not an individual with a disability as defined by the ADA, and the fitness for duty and tuberculosis examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s grant of summаry judgment in favor of the City.
AFFIRMED.