In Brownfield v. City of Yakima, published July 27, 2010, the 9th Circuit interpreted provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act that limit the ability of employers to require employees to undergo Fitness for Duties Examinations. The court ruled that a police department could properly require a police officer who displayed erratic behavior several years after a closed-head injury to undergo a fitness exam. Although exams can only be required based on business necessity, and the standard is a high and objective one to prevent abuse, significant evidence that could cause a reasonable person to inquire whether the officer is still capable of doing his job, involving genuine reason to doubt the officer can still perform his job functions, justifies the examination requirement. In light of police officers’ sensitive duties, erratic behavior that indicates difficulty in controlling emotions can justify requiring an examination.
The court also ruled that the district court properly dismissed the officer’s contention that the exam was ordered in retaliation for his complaint about a fellow officer to his superiors, and thus violated his First Amendment rights. Complaints that a fellow officer is receiving job advantages that the complainant is not receiving do not rise to the level of a matter of public concern.
Comments