Emily Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth.
2014 FED App. 0195P, 30 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 699, 763 F.3d 619 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer's requirement that an employee undergo a medical examination is "job-related and consistent with business necessity" only if the employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the employee's ability to perform essential job functions is impaired or that the employee poses a direct threat to safety. A supervisor's moral condemnation of an employee's personal life and knowledge of only isolated incidents of poor job performance are insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Emily Kroll, an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) for White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA), began a tumultuous affair with a married coworker, Joshua Easton.
- The affair led to Kroll becoming emotional at work, with coworkers observing her crying, arguing on her phone, and sending text messages while on duty.
- Coworkers reported to her supervisor, Brian Binns, that Kroll used her cell phone while driving the ambulance, though Binns could only recall one such report.
- During one ambulance run, Kroll argued with paramedic Jodi Osborn over a personal matter and subsequently ignored Osborn's request to assist in administering oxygen to a patient.
- Osborn complained to Binns that Kroll refused to communicate and assist with patient care during the incident.
- Binns met with Kroll and demanded she undergo psychological counseling as a condition of continued employment, explicitly stating his concern was her "immoral personal behavior" and that her "life was a mess."
- Binns admitted that he "never had a problem with [Kroll] as far as patient care" and that his decision was primarily based on her personal life and sexual relationships.
- Kroll refused to attend counseling because she could not afford it, turned in her equipment, and was subsequently terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Emily Kroll filed a complaint against White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment for WLAA, ruling that the required counseling was not a 'medical examination' under the ADA.
- Kroll, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- In a prior decision (Kroll I), the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that a jury could find the counseling was a 'medical examination,' and remanded the case.
- On remand, WLAA renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing the examination was justified as a business necessity.
- The district court again granted summary judgment in favor of WLAA, finding the requirement was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- Kroll, as appellant, again appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 an employer's requirement that an employee undergo psychological counseling violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when the employer's decision is based on a supervisor's moral disapproval of the employee's personal life and knowledge of only two isolated incidents of poor job performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Karen Nelson Moore
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the employer's requirement violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. An employer may only compel a medical examination if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity, a standard not met when the decision is based on a supervisor's moralistic judgment and isolated incidents of poor performance. The employer bears the burden of proving that it had a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the employee's ability to perform essential functions was impaired or that they posed a direct threat. Here, the supervisor, Binns, was aware of only two isolated incidents: one report of Kroll using her cell phone while driving and one instance of refusing to assist a coworker with patient care. A reasonable jury could conclude that these isolated events, while grounds for discipline, were insufficient to establish that Kroll was unable to perform her job or posed a significant risk. Crucially, the decision to compel counseling was not based on a 'reasonable medical judgment' but on Binns's own admission that he was motivated by moral disapproval of Kroll's personal life. This subjective, moralistic reasoning fails to satisfy the objective, evidence-based standard required by the ADA.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar employers must clear under the ADA to compel a medical examination. It clarifies that the "business necessity" test requires objective, job-related evidence of performance impairment or a direct threat, not a supervisor's subjective or moralistic view of an employee's private life. The ruling serves as a significant check on employers, particularly in public safety fields, preventing them from using the medical examination provision to police personal conduct that has not demonstrably and consistently impacted job performance. Future cases will likely cite this opinion to challenge employer-mandated examinations that appear pretextual or are based on isolated mistakes rather than a pattern of concerning behavior.
