By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep’t, a U.S. District Court dismissed a lawsuit for disability discrimination brought by a former police officer against the City of Troy, Michigan. In his lawsuit, the Officer claimed that the police department wrongly believed he was disabled and then placed him on unpaid leave based on that belief. He also claimed that the City failed to provide any reasonable accommodations for what it perceived to be a disability before placing him on leave. The Court determined that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the Officer was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation and, even if he was, the City had legitimate reasons for denying those accommodations to the Officer.
Todd Michael was a police officer, hired with the Troy Police Department in 1987. In March of 2000, he was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and underwent surgery to remove it. Although the tumor was non-cancerous, it was recurring and the Officer underwent subsequent surgeries in 2001, 2002, and 2009. Because the Officer’s superiors thought he was occasionally exhibiting odd behavior, the City required that he undergo a neuropsychological evaluation. After an extensive interview and testing process that lasted over seven hours, the doctor who evaluated the Officer spent an additional nine hours evaluating the results and preparing her report. She concluded that convincing evidence showed that the Officer was no longer competent to handle his duties as an officer. Based on this opinion, the City determined that it was best to place the Officer on leave until it could determine the proper course of action.
Subsequent to this initial opinion, the Officer visited five other physicians and received varied responses regarding his condition. One suggested he was capable of engaging in regular daily activities, but failed to address his capacity to perform the duties of a police officer. Another report suggested that the first doctor performed the tests correctly, but misinterpreted the results. Still, others claimed that the initial report was accurate and that Plaintiff could not safely perform job functions that involved high-speed chasing or the use of firearms in fast-paced confrontations. In light of the City’s reason for putting him on unpaid leave, the Officer requested that he be moved to a light duty desk position. However, the City denied this request, indicating that the position necessarily entailed access to confidential department files and that, previously, the Officer had been found to possess unauthorized confidential records.
In his lawsuit, the Officer complained that the City made several errors. First, he argued that the City had wrongly determined that he was disabled. To support this assertion, he indicated that some of the doctors’ opinions suggested that he was capable of performing police officer duties. Second, the Officer argued that the City failed to provide reasonable accommodations, such as his request for light duty, for the disability that it perceived him to have. Third, he argued that the City had wrongly required a medical evaluation because other officers were not subject to such evaluations after showing signs that they might lack capacity to perform certain job functions. Specifically, he pointed to the fact that physical fitness is important for an officer to perform essential job functions, but the City did not remove officers from duty who became physically unfit.
In response, the City argued that it was entitled to rely on the medical opinions that it used when making the decision to place the Officer on leave. It also argued that those opinions clearly stated that it was unsafe for the Officer, to himself and potentially others, to act in his regular former position. Finally, the City argued that it was not required to provide the Officer with the light duty positions he requested because his former unauthorized possession of confidential records was a legitimate reason for denying his request.
The Court addressed each of the Officer’s complaints. First, it stated simply that the Officer was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. It explained that people can be “regarded as disabled if [they] have been subjected to an action prohibited [by the ADA] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment.” Nevertheless, if the impairment is only a perceived disability, then this “obviates an employer’s responsibility to offer reasonable accommodation.” Because the Officer maintained the position that he was not disabled, there was no duty on the City to accommodate a non-existing disability. But the Court continued to state that, even if there was a duty to reasonably accommodate the Officer, the requested accommodations were unreasonable because the Officer’s prior misconduct with confidential materials precluded him from working in the requested light duty positions.
Next, the Court explained that the City properly relied on the medical opinions indicating that the Officer could not adequately perform his position. It noted, “as an initial matter… the ADA does not provide for a plaintiff to challenge the reasonable medical judgment an employer relies upon.” Therefore, the Court considered it unclear whether the opinions supporting the Officer’s claims that he could return to work were even relevant. Nevertheless, the Court continued to determine that the medical opinions relied upon by the City were based on proper tests and studies, while the opinions provided by the Officer were less reliable. It explained:
“[The Officer] argues that the evaluations… show that he is able to perform the essential functions of a police officer. Critically, [one doctor] did not consider the police officer job description in reaching his conclusion that [the Officer] was fit to return to work… Neither [of the others] interviewed Michael in person… It was therefore not unreasonable for [the City] not to adopt the conclusions that Michael was fit to return to police officer duty.”
Finally, the Court concluded that whether other officers should have been determined unfit to work in their positions had no bearing on whether the City correctly determined the limitations of the Officer in this case. Based on this reasoning, the Court dismissed the lawsuit in favor of the City.
This was a tough case for the Officer, largely because there were so many medical opinions offering varied and conflicting conclusions about the nature of his perceived disability. The Officer did not consider himself disabled, but ultimately his acknowledgement of the fact that he suffered from a disability could have provided him greater ADA protection. Under the law, the Department had no duty to accommodate a perceived disability, yet had he admitted his disability, and such fact was known to the Department, then they would have had a duty to reasonably accommodate him. This case is somewhat different than the typical “perceived-as” or “regarded-as” disability cases where the plaintiff is usually arguing the employer believed they were disabled, and discriminated against them because of that perceived disability. Importantly, an employee bringing a regarded as claim does not have to show that the employer regarded him or her as substantially limited in a major life activity, but need only show that the employer took adverse actions against the plaintiff because of the regarded as disability.
