The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) places certain limitations on an employer’s ability to ask questions regarding an employee’s medical conditions. One important exception concerns “fitness for duty assessments.” Once an individual’s employment relationship has begun, the employer may request an employee to submit to a fitness for duty assessment by a physician in order to determine whether the employee is able (with or without reasonable accommodation) to perform the essential functions of the job. However, the ADA requires that such examinations must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently addressed this standard in the case of Donald Baker v. Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (10th Cir. 2/4/25), and held that an employer did not violate the ADA by refusing to allow an employee to return to work based on a required fitness for duty assessment.
Baker was employed by Alliance as a research technician. He had also previously served in the Iraq war. Some of his essential job functions were hazardous in nature, and included the training of coworkers to maintain and operate heavy industrial equipment. Baker reported to coworkers through emails that he was unable to sleep because of a strained relationship with and animosity towards his supervisor. He also accused his supervisor of “stolen valor” and being an “imposter” and a “fraud,” and also referred to service members who “took their own lives because of the atrocities of war.” Upon learning of these emails, Alliance’s Human Resources Department placed Baker on a leave of absence, pending a fitness for duty assessment. The examining doctor found that Baker was not fit for duty, and recommended additional leave and counseling for “significant psychological stress.” When Baker apparently failed to complete these steps recommended by examining doctor, Alliance scheduled another medical assessment in order to determine whether Baker was fit to return to work. However, Baker refused to submit to that examination and quit his job, claiming that he had been “constructively discharged.”
Baker filed suit in Federal District Court against Alliance, alleging that he had been subjected to disability discrimination in violation of the ADA. The court granted Alliance’s motion for summary judgment as to this claim, finding that because Baker had failed to complete all steps required to demonstrate his fitness for duty, he was not qualified to perform the essential functions of his job. Baker appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Tenth Circuit focused on the employer’s right to conduct fitness for duty assessments when determining whether an individual is a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA. The Court stated that such assessments are permissible “when there is a basis to believe that the employee’s ability to perform her job may be impaired or the employee presents troubling behavior that would impact the work environment.” Here, the Court found evidence of such behavior, based on Baker’s emails to coworkers regarding his stress and related hostility towards a supervisor. According to the Court, this gave rise to a reasonable conclusion that Baker’s mental health affected his ability to perform the essential functions of his job. Given that some of those essential functions were hazardous and required “intense concentration,” Alliance thus had reasonable grounds to require a fitness for duty assessment to determine whether Baker could perform those duties safely. The Court therefore agreed that Baker’s failure to complete all steps of the assessment meant that he could not demonstrate that he was qualified to perform all of the essential functions of the job. As such, his ADA discrimination claim was properly dismissed.
The Tenth Circuit’s decision is also noteworthy for its recognition that an employee’s subjective belief that he or she is safe to perform the essential functions of the job is not relevant. Rather, the test for determining whether a fitness for duty assessment is “job related and consistent with business necessity” is necessarily an objective one: whether the circumstances would cause a “reasonable person to inquire as to whether an employee is still capable of performing his job.” (Emphasis in original). In reviewing such evidence, the Court also acknowledged that it should not second-guess the employer’s judgment regarding what are essential job requirements.
This case is thus instructive as to the importance of fitness for duty assessments in determining whether an employee is qualified to perform essential job functions. However, employers must understand the ADA’s limitations on when such assessments can be requested, how the results from the assessments can be used in making employment decisions, and the obligations they impose to engage in the interactive process with the employee when considering possible reasonable accommodation. Employers are encouraged to consult with experienced legal counsel in this process, especially when such ADA considerations overlap with rights to certain employee benefits under the FMLA, workers compensation, and other potentially applicable laws.
