According to the Court’s opinion, several of the plaintiff’s
co-workers testified to her erratic behavior and that they had complained to
management about it. Among other things,
she would cry, argue with her married boyfriend on her cell phone, send text
messages while driving an ambulance in violation of the employer’s policy and
refused to assist a co-worker (who she suspected of also having an affair with
the plaintiff’s married boyfriend) administer oxygen to a patient. The
plaintiff denied violating the employer’s policy on using cell phones or
texting while driving. After the last incident, the plaintiff’s
supervisor conditioned her continued employment on attending counseling with the
professional of her choice. He admitted
in his deposition that he did not really question her patient care. He also admitted that he was compelling counseling because her life was a mess and he
thought that he could help her. “[H]is primary concerns regarding
Kroll related to her personal life and her sexual relationships.” In addition,
the plaintiff
confirmed that Binns
told her she would need to attend counseling because of her personal behavior.
She testified that, during the meeting following her argument with Osborn,
Binns “said I was picking up men from the bar and I was going to end up raped
if I just picked up random men from the bar.” . . . Kroll recalls that Binns explicitly told
her that she “needed counseling because of [her] immoral personal
behavior.” . . . Although Kroll agreed
that she had some emotional problems and that she might have benefitted from
some counseling, she refused treatment because she could not afford to pay for
it.
The ADA
prohibits requiring employees to submit to medical examinations or inquiries
unless the employer can prove that they are job related and consistent with
business necessity. This burden can be
met where: “(1) the employee requests an accommodation; (2) the
employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job is impaired;
or (3) the employee poses a direct threat to himself or others.” The Court concluded that the employer could
not prove that there were questions about the plaintiff’s ability to perform
her essential job functions based on two isolated incidents. Granted, “a genuine reason may arise when an
employee’s “aberrant behavior” raises the concern that an employee’s mental or
emotional instability could undermine her ability to complete her job functions
effectively in the employer’s work environment.” Nonetheless, most of the evidence of such
behavior cited by the employer had been forgotten (if it had ever been known by
her supervisor by the time of his deposition) and, more importantly, related to
off-duty behavior:
Kroll’s behavior is relevant to the assessment of whether she
was capable of performing her job only to the extent that it interfered with
her ability to administer basic medical care and safely transport patients to
the hospital. A reasonable jury could find that Kroll’s emotional outbursts
outside of work hours and not in the presence of patients did not impair her
ability to perform essential job functions.
Therefore, a jury could reasonably conclude that there was
no valid reason for questioning the plaintiff’s professional competence.
Safely transporting patients to the hospital and providing
basic medical care were among the essential duties of Kroll’s position as an
EMT. Binns knew that an EMT who becomes distracted while driving an ambulance,
either because she is using her cell phone or because she is focused on personal
concerns, is at a higher risk of causing a traffic accident. . . . Therefore, had Binns been
aware of a pattern of behavior that showed Kroll’s emotional or psychological
problems were interfering with her ability to drive an ambulance safely, he
might have been justified in ordering a medical examination. In the instant case,
however, Binns knew only that Kroll had broken a safety rule once and provided suboptimal
care to a patient once. Kroll’s isolated moments of unprofessional conduct
might reasonably have prompted Binns to begin internal disciplinary procedures
or to provide Kroll with additional training, but they could not support the
conclusion that Kroll was experiencing an emotional or psychological problem
that interfered with her ability to perform her job functions.
The Court rejected the direct threat defense on a similar
basis:
As an EMT employed by an ambulance service, Kroll was
undoubtedly employed in a position of public safety. A reasonable jury could
find that the emotional behavior observed by Kroll’s coworkers, particularly
any distractions while Kroll was driving, could endanger not only herself and
her coworkers but also the members of the public she was called upon to aid.
Thus, if Binns had been aware of a pattern of conduct in which Kroll succumbed
to emotional outbursts while she was driving or providing direct medical care,
he might have been justified in concluding that she posed a direct threat to
safety. However, as discussed above, Binns knew of only two isolated incidents
when Kroll ever behaved in a way that could endanger another person. A
reasonable jury could find that Binns could not reasonably have concluded from
these missteps that Kroll presented “a significant risk to the health or safety
of others.”
Moreover, the
employer did not consult any medical information or professional in mandating
mental health counseling. The EEOC regulations require an employer to make an
individualized assessment of the employee’s threat based on the”
employee’s abilities and job functions and “based on a reasonable medical
judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best
available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). While
the Court was unwilling to precisely define what steps an employer must take, “an
employer must do more than follow its own lay intuition regarding the threat
posed by an employee’s potential medical condition.” In this case, there was no evidence that the
supervisor “made any kind of medical judgment at all.”
Therefore, while there is evidence in the record to support
a jury verdict in the employer’s favor, there was also enough evidence for a
jury to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, summary judgment was inappropriate.
For those of you wondering about why there was no Title VII claim, there was evidence that the supervisor had requested male employees exhibiting similar behavior to also submit to mental health counseling.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
