By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In a case that was decided on summary judgment, the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the City of Chicago did not fail to accommodate or discriminate against Plaintiff, a fire paramedic in violation of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Specifically, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff, a fire paramedic with chronic Bell’s palsy employed by the City of Chicago, had failed to show that discrimination was the cause of her being sent to three fit-for-duty evaluations and being placed on involuntary leave.
While the Plaintiff had a host of chronic symptoms related to her Bell’s palsy medical condition, including paralysis to the right side of her face, facial distortion and drooping, impaired speech and hearing, both the Plaintiff and employer City of Chicago agreed that the Bell’s palsy conditions did not preclude her from being fit for duty as a fire paramedic.
Plaintiff also had an acute anxiety disorder that was managed by taking Xanax. Xanax is on a list of medications that were prohibited for on-duty use as it could impair judgment. Adderall is also on the list of medications that was closely monitored and not allowed for on-duty use. Plaintiff used Adderall for the treatment of ADHD. This list, along with the procedures for managing suspicion of on-duty drug use, was negotiated between the employer and the union. Plaintiff claimed that she never took the medication while on duty.
What followed were a series of events that culminated in Plaintiff being sent to three fit-for-duty evaluations and, for a period of time, being placed on paid involuntary medical leave pending the results of the evaluations. In one case, Plaintiff made a series of bizarre statements, could not hold a conversation and was driving an ambulance dangerously with one eye closed. In another, Plaintiff was inconsolable and behaving erratically after being involved in a minor collision. Plaintiff was also observed potentially sleeping on the job. In each of the fit-for-duty evaluations, Plaintiff tested higher than the allowed limit for Xanax and Adderall. Plaintiff alleged that there was no cause for her peers to report her or for her Supervisor to take action because her behavior was, in part, due to her Bell’s palsy symptoms and not from taking prohibited medication while on duty or over-using medication. She reported that the high levels of drugs in her system were due to dehydration. The Plaintiff sued the City for ADA discrimination and retaliation for placing her on involuntary medical leave. The City sued to have the case dismissed.
First, the Court stated that the Plaintiff could not show cause. Many of the people she alleged discriminated against her on the basis of her disability/Bell’s palsy had no knowledge of her condition. Further, the Court stated that there was no evidence in the record to show that on each of the three occasions her Bell’s palsy—and not her behavior—was the cause of her Supervisors sending her to a fit for duty evaluation. Finally, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she needed an accommodation to do her job or that her Bell’s palsy was at all relevant to her ability or inability to perform the essential functions of her job.
The Court ruled “the drug tests and psychological evaluation were unquestionably linked to the City’s legitimate interest in ensuring the safety of its workforce and the patients who find their lives in its paramedics’ hands.”
This case serves as an example that employees with multiple medical conditions cannot use one condition to explain potential unfitness for duty related to an alternative and different medical condition. The ADA looks at each disability separately and independently to determine if an employee is fit for duty based on that specific medical condition. The ADA also requires that the employer have actual or perceived knowledge of the disability and courts will uphold adverse employment actions where behavior, and not unknown disabling conditions, could lead to safety risks.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on the Disability Discrimination **
