Daryle McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co
2017 WL 3481860, 867 F. 3d 411, 33 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1029 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee is not a 'qualified individual' under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they cannot meet a legally mandated job requirement, such as the fitness-for-duty and security clearance standards imposed by a federal regulatory agency like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Compliance with such federal safety regulations is an essential function of the job and provides a defense to an ADA discrimination claim.
Facts:
- Daryle McNelis was employed by PPL Susquehanna, LLC in 2009 as an armed Nuclear Security Officer, a position that required him to have unrestricted access to the nuclear plant and authorized him to use deadly force.
- In April 2012, McNelis exhibited paranoid behavior, believing his home was under surveillance, telling his wife he would kill whoever was following him, and having issues with alcohol use.
- Following a domestic dispute where McNelis's wife and children left the home, police received an anonymous 911 call warning that McNelis might go to his children's school while armed, which resulted in a school lockdown.
- McNelis subsequently spent three days in a psychiatric facility where he was noted to have 'paranoid thoughts' and 'questionable auditory hallucinations.'
- As required by NRC regulations, a coworker reported concerns about McNelis's 'emotionally erratic' behavior to a supervisor.
- PPL referred McNelis to Dr. David Thompson, a third-party psychologist, for a mandatory fitness-for-duty examination.
- Dr. Thompson's report concluded that McNelis was 'not fit for duty' pending an alcohol assessment and potential treatment.
- Based on Dr. Thompson's determination, PPL revoked McNelis’s unescorted access authorization and terminated his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Daryle McNelis filed a lawsuit against his former employer, PPL Susquehanna, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, claiming his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- PPL filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that McNelis was not a qualified individual under the ADA.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of PPL.
- McNelis, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with PPL as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating an armed security officer at a nuclear power plant, after he fails a federally mandated fitness-for-duty examination and consequently loses his required security clearance, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardiman, Circuit Judge
No. The termination does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because McNelis was not a 'qualified individual' for his position after failing to meet federally mandated safety requirements. The court reasoned that to be a qualified individual, an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job. For a Nuclear Security Officer, maintaining NRC-mandated fitness-for-duty status and unescorted security clearance are essential job functions. These are not merely employer-devised qualifications but are legally-defined requirements that have the force of law. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, the court held that an employer has an unconditional obligation to follow federal safety regulations, which can limit the application of the ADA. PPL was not only permitted but required to adhere to the NRC regulations, and its reliance on the authorized physician's fitness determination was proper and, in fact, mandated by those same regulations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the supremacy of specific federal safety regulations over the general anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA in safety-sensitive industries. It clarifies that when a federal law or regulation establishes a mandatory job qualification, meeting that qualification is an 'essential function' of the job as a matter of law. The ruling provides a strong defense for employers in highly regulated fields like nuclear power and transportation, allowing them to enforce government-mandated safety standards without fear of ADA liability. Consequently, this precedent significantly limits the scope of ADA protection for employees in positions where their physical or mental fitness is governed by specific federal safety rules.
