Robert Parker v. Crete Carrier Corporation
839 F.3d 717, 2016 WL 5929210 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer may require a specific class of employees to undergo a medical examination if the exam is job-related, consistent with business necessity, and the class is reasonably defined based on legitimate safety concerns.
Facts:
- Crete Carrier Corporation, a motor carrier, employed Robert J. Parker as an over-the-road truck driver.
- Crete implemented a policy requiring drivers with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 35 or greater to undergo an in-lab sleep study to test for obstructive sleep apnea, a condition known to cause daytime sleepiness and increase accident risk.
- This policy was based on recommendations from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) advisory committees that linked high BMI to sleep apnea.
- Parker's BMI was measured at over 35 during his most recent Department of Transportation (DOT) physical.
- Crete ordered Parker to schedule and undergo the mandatory sleep study.
- Parker visited a physician assistant who provided a note stating, 'I do not feel it is medically necessary for Robert to have a sleep study.'
- Parker refused to undergo the sleep study, and in response, Crete stopped assigning him work, effectively taking him 'out of service'.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert J. Parker sued Crete Carrier Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- During discovery, Crete submitted an expert report, and Parker filed a motion to exclude it.
- Parker moved for partial summary judgment, and Crete moved for summary judgment.
- The district court denied Parker's motions and granted summary judgment in favor of Crete Carrier Corporation.
- Parker, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Crete Carrier Corporation 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 an employer's policy requiring all truck drivers with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 35 or greater to undergo a medical examination for sleep apnea violate the ADA's prohibition on non-job-related medical examinations?
Opinions:
Majority - Benton, Circuit Judge
No, the employer's policy does not violate the ADA because the medical examination requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The ADA permits employers to require a medical exam for a class of employees, not just on an individualized basis, provided the employer has a reasonable basis for concluding that the class poses a genuine safety risk and the exam requirement effectively decreases that risk. Here, Crete demonstrated that untreated sleep apnea poses a significant public safety hazard for commercial truck drivers, that a high BMI is a primary risk factor for the condition, and that a sleep study is the most effective method for diagnosis. Therefore, defining the class of employees as those with a BMI of 35 or higher was reasonable, making the examination requirement lawful under the 'business necessity' exception. Parker's individual good driving record and a note from a medical provider do not undermine the reasonableness of the class-based policy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the ADA's 'job-related and consistent with business necessity' standard for medical examinations can be applied to a class of employees, not just on a case-by-case basis. It provides significant legal cover for employers, particularly in safety-sensitive industries like transportation, to implement broad medical screening policies based on objective risk factors like BMI. The ruling clarifies that an employer does not need to wait for an individual employee to exhibit symptoms of a condition before requiring a test, so long as the policy targets a reasonably defined, at-risk group. This precedent strengthens an employer's ability to proactively manage safety risks, even if the policy includes some individuals who ultimately do not have the targeted condition.
