plaintiff was removed from the work force "because he wasn't taking his
medication." Pl. Resp. at 7. This, however, does not constitute "direct
evidence of discrimination." The plaintiffs failure to take his
medication precipitated his failure to complete the drug rehabilitation
program, a necessary prerequisite for him returning to work. The
supervisors statement is consistent with the defendant's legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason, and there is no evidence of reliance on any
other illegitimate criterion.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
taking his claims as true, the defendant has produced a legitimate reason
to support a decision to terminate, which the plaintiff has failed to
discredit. See Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764, fn. 7. Because the plaintiff has
failed to establish a prima facie case or carry its burden under the
McDonnell Douglas framework. summary judgment for the defendant is
appropriate on the issue of discrimination under the ADA and the PHRA.
C. Medical Inquiry Claim
The plaintiff also argues that the defendant violated the ADA by
wrongfully requesting the psychiatric examination.*fn3 Summary judgment
will be granted for the defendant on this claim because the examination
falls within the "business necessity" exception of the ADA. The Court
does not reach the other issues raised by the defendant — whether
the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to this
claim, and whether the examination actually caused the plaintiff's
Medical examinations of current employees are acceptable under the ADA
if they are "job — related and consistent with business
necessity.'s 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(A). There must be sufficient
evidence for a reasonable person to doubt whether an employee is capable
of performing the job, and the examination must be limited to determining
an employee's ability to perform essential job functions. See Sullivan,
197 F.3d at 813. The plaintiff argues that the examination was not
job-related because the psychiatrist was never asked to evaluate Law's
ability to perform essential job functions. The defendant argues that
completion of the drug rehabilitation program was a job requirement, and
that the plaintiff was examined by a psychiatrist to determine whether he
could successfully complete that program. The psychiatrist concluded that
with appropriate medical treatment, the plaintiff could successfully
complete the prescribed drug treatment program and, therefore, maintain
his employment at GST.
The Court agrees with the defendant that the examination as a whole was
job-related and consistent with business necessity.
An Order follows.
AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #10), all responses
thereto, the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket #11),
and all responses thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Plaintiffs Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED for the reasons expressed in the
Memorandum of today's date.