By Reba Weiss & Harrison Owens
In Allen v. Baltimore County, a Maryland District Court allowed a corrections officer to continue with his claim for disability discrimination under the ADA against his employer. In his complaint, the officer claimed that his employer had caused him to sign a demotion agreement and terminated him because he suffered from an inflammatory disease. The District Court found that the officer could have performed his job if his employer had accommodated his disability, such as by allowing him time to take his medication or giving him light duty.
Corrections Officer Alfred Allen began working at the Baltimore County Detention Center in 2001, and remained employed by the Center until 2011. He had been previously diagnosed with sarcoidosis, which is an inflammatory disease that causes lesions throughout the body.
In 2006, Allen experienced a flare-up that forced him to temporarily leave his job. His doctor gave him a prescription medication to counter the effects of his sarcoidosis, and he was granted FMLA leave by the County effective January 2006. The medication was effective, and Allen was able to return to work by March 2006. Another flare-up occurred in May 2010, and Allen had to take FMLA leave. His doctor recommended that he be “off work” at least through July. However, his doctor later approved him to return to work on light duty, which Allen did on August 1. At that time, the County did not have policy limiting the duration of a light duty assignment.
In December 2010, Director James O’Neill observed that Allen’s movements were impaired by his condition, and allegedly became concerned that Allen would be unable to defend himself if attacked by an inmate. O’Neill requested that Allen be directed to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam. Later in December, Allen was again placed on medication for his condition by his doctor, but was warned that he may have permanent weakness in his legs because he had not reported his worsening symptoms for some time. A week later, Allen was ordered to resume full duty, which he did.
On January 11, 2011, Allen underwent a fitness-for-duty examination. The evaluating doctor concluded that Allen would not be able to perform all of his job’s responsibilities safely and reliably, and it was unlikely that his condition would improve in the foreseeable future. In response to this evaluation, the County decided to initiate a demotion process for Allen. In February 2011, Allen received an “options letter” that stated he could either apply for and be granted a transfer to a position that he was qualified for or resign, and if he took no action he would be terminated. Allen’s protests were denied, and he began working in a new position in March 2011.
Allen filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and received a right to sue letter on September 3, 2013. During this time, O’Neill scheduled Allen for a second fitness-for-duty examination, which he retracted when Allen objected to it. Allen filed a lawsuit against the County, claiming that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. After Allen filed suit against the County, he was re-evaluated by the County as part of the trial process, found fit for duty, and returned to his original position.
The District Court found that Allen had valid claims for failure to accommodate and unlawful demotion claims in violation of the ADA. The Court found that Allen’s sarcoidosis was a disability protected by the ADA because it was a physical impairment that limited major life activities, including walking, standing, and working. Also, Allen was arguably a qualified individual who could perform the essential functions of his employment because his doctor stated that he could work full time if he was reasonably accommodated. These accommodations could have included giving him enough time to take his medication when his condition flared up or otherwise engaging in the interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation. The Court also found that the County subjected Allen to adverse employment action when it demoted him, because as a result of that demotion Allen suffered significant harms, including loss of compensation and retirement prospects.
However, the Court found that Allen did not have a valid claim against the County for when it required him to submit to unnecessary and overbroad medical examinations and disability-related injuries. The Court found that all the examinations the County requested that Allen undergo were related to his job and were a business necessity. Therefore, the Court dismissed Allen’s claim for this alleged violation.
In summary, the District Court allowed Allen to bring his disability discrimination claims against the County for violations of the ADA after he demonstrated that it was likely that he was wrongfully demoted. However, the Court found that Allen could not bring a claim against the County for subjecting him to illegal examinations, as they were related to his job and were a business necessity.
An employer may not demote a disabled employee unless it has engaged in the “interactive process” and made a bona fide attempt to accommodate the employee in the position s/he holds. Demotion is considered an “adverse action” that is prohibited as the result of a request for accommodation. On the other hand, an employer has the right to subject its employee to a medical exam if it is related to his job and is a business necessity.
