United States: Supreme Court Declines To Examine Job Applicants

Should a non-disabled job applicant be permitted to bring a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") if the applicant is required to divulge his or her medical history on an employment application? On April 19, 1999, the Supreme Court, in denying a petition for certiorari, let stand a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, that a non-disabled job applicant may bring such a lawsuit. Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1445 (1999).

Randy Griffin, who is non-disabled, applied for a position with Steeltek, Inc. as a grinder. However, Steeltek declined to hire Mr. Griffin because he did not possess the requisite grinding experience. After being turned down for the position, Mr. Griffin filed suit contending that Steeltek’s application process violated the ADA. Specifically, Mr. Griffin contended that Steeltek asked two questions on the job application that violated the ADA section prohibiting employers from inquiring "whether [the] applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of [the] disability." The first question asked: "Have you received Worker’s Compensation or Disability Income Payments? If yes, describe." The second asked: "Have you physical defects which preclude you from performing certain jobs? If yes, describe." To the first question, Mr. Griffin responded that he had a severe burn to his hand and foot, surgery on his elbow and pain in his shoulder. He did not respond to the second question. In his lawsuit, Mr. Griffin did not claim that he was disabled, rather that he was improperly asked these two questions and that Steeltek did not hire him because of his answers to these questions.

In considering the employer’s motion papers that Mr. Griffin’s case was deficient, the district court ruled that as a matter of law Mr. Griffin failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA because he did not claim either that he was disabled, or that he was perceived as disabled. Thus, the district court awarded judgment to the employer.

The court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision, and concluded that a job applicant does not have to show that he or she is disabled or perceived to be disabled to maintain suit under the ADA. The court emphasized that this section of the ADA applies to all job applicants, not just "qualified individual[s] with a disability." The court also indicated that the purpose of the ADA, to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities, is best served by permitting all applicants for employment who are subjected to unlawful questions about their medical history to bring a lawsuit against the offending employer. In addition, the court ruled that Mr. Griffin sufficiently alleged that he had suffered an injury, namely that Steeltek failed to hire him as a result of his responses to the impermissible questions.

An interesting aspect of this decision is that it was not unanimous. One judge from the appellate panel filed a dissenting opinion. Unlike the majority, this judge argued that the employer’s medical questions did not cause injury to Mr. Griffin and, therefore, the district court’s opinion awarding judgment to the employer should have been upheld. The dissent quite forcefully concluded that the "ADA cannot reasonably be construed to protect a job applicant, who is neither disabled nor perceived to be disabled, from not being hired for a reason wholly unrelated to any disability or perceived disability."

Employers should review their employment application forms to ensure that none of the questions that are being asked of applicants violate the ADA. Furthermore, employees who conduct employment interviews should be properly trained so that they are asking lawful questions only. If you should have any questions about how this decision will affect your business, please contact us by telephone or e-mail as set forth below

The information provided herein is for general guidance on matters of interest only. While every effort has been made to ensure the information provided herein is accurate and timely, no decision should be made or action taken on the basis of information without first consulting an Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. professional.