This week a federal court in Michigan reinforced the ADA’s requirement that employers conduct an “individualized inquiry” to determine whether an applicant or employee with a disability can perform the essential functions of a job. LaFata v. Dearborn Heights Sch. Dist. No.7, E.D. Mich., No. 2:13-cv-10755, 12/11/13
Adam LaFata applied for the position of Plant Engineer with Dearborn Heights School District No. 7. He had worked as a building supervisor at the Lincoln Park Community Center for the last ten years. He regularly used ladders and carried objects weighing more than forty pounds at the Community Center. After two interviews with the School District, LaFata was offered the Plant Engineer position.
School District policy requires every applicant to pass a physical exam to demonstrate they are able to perform the essential functions of the position for which they apply. The School District contracts with Midwest Health Systems to perform these exams.
Dr. Joel Perlson conducted the physical exam of LaFata. Dr. Perlson had concerns about LaFata’s balance based on the way LaFata climbed onto his examination table, and he noticed muscle atrophy in LaFata’s legs. Dr. Perlson asked Lafata to walk on his heels or toes, but LaFata could not do so. Dr. Perlson then asked LaFata if he wore leg braces. LaFata replied that sometimes he did, but he had not worn them that day. Upon further examination, Dr. Perlson noticed muscle atrophy in LaFata’s hands, but concluded that his hand strength seemed adequate. Based on these observations, Dr. Perlson opined that LaFata had Charcot Marie Tooth syndrome, which is a genetic disorder that causes muscle deterioration and gradual loss of strength. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Nancy Sabal, LaFata’s family doctor. However, Dr. Sabal concluded that LaFata’s strength was more than adequate for his job and daily activities, and that he was suitable for the job.
At some point in the examination process, Dr. Perlson reviewed a very general job description for the Plant Engineer position. Dr. Perlson concluded that LaFata could do only ground level work and should be restricted from climbing ladders and lifting more than forty pounds. It was unclear, however, whether Dr. Perlson thought these restrictions were necessary at the time or would be necessary in the future. Notes of Dr. Perlson’s conversation with the School District seem to suggest that LaFata was healthy enough, but that he would weaken over time and probably never improve. According to the notes, Dr. Perlson said that the School District could hire LaFata, but he likely would become a candidate for workers’ compensation or disability after two to three years.
The School District decided, based on Dr. Perlson’s recommended restrictions, that LaFata could not do the job. The testimony was that this decision was virtually automatic, similar to when a criminal background check showed that someone was a felon. The School District did not read Dr. Perlson’s report, consider LaFata’s ability to perform his current position, or discuss whether any reasonable accommodations would allow LaFata to perform the essential functions of the Plant Engineer position. The School District defended itself by saying that it had a right to rely on Dr. Perlson’s expert medical opinion.
The Court determined that the School District violated the ADA, because the ADA requires an individualized inquiry in determining whether an individual’s disability or other condition disqualifies him from a particular position. In this case, the School District did not have sufficient information to determine whether Dr. Perlson’s opinion was reasonable. They had not even read his report when they concluded LaFata could not perform the job. They also did not engage in an analysis to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would allow LaFata to perform the essential functions of the job. The Court wrote that the School District could not “slavishly” defer to the doctor’s opinion or escape its legal obligations by contracting out hiring and personal functions to third parties.