UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Garrison v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.

in International Labour Law Reports Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Garrison v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.

in International Labour Law Reports Online

References

1. Some footnotes have been editorially deleted; the numbering is as in the original. Editorial deletions of text are indicated by ellipses or by asterisks.

2. Centrilift and the Tulsa Area Human Resources Association, as amici curiae, argue Mr. Garrison is not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act because under Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 ... (1999), Mr. Garrison's injuries could not be considered a disability. Sutton held myopic airline pilot applicants were not disabled under 42 U.S.C. § 12I02 where use of corrective lenses gave the appli- cants 20/20 visual acuity. Id. at 488. Sutton is not controlling because Mr. Garrison had more serious injuries to his hearing, neck, shoulder, elbow, hand, back, abdomen, lungs, knee, and feet and no comparable corrective measures. Also, Sutton does not address the remedies available to entering employees under the medical examination and inquiry provisions of § 12112(d)(3)...

3. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Technical Assistance Man- ual is not controlling by reason of its authority, we may properly "draw guidance from the views" expressed therein....

4. Our previous decision does not preclude allegations Centrilift used examination results to discriminate on the basis of a perceived disability in violation of § 12112(d)(3)(C). Our previous decision held, contrary to jury instructions in the first trial, a plaintiff in general need not show disability to recover under § 12112(d)(3)... .. This is because § 12112(d)(3)(A) and (B) claims arise out of an employer's post- offer hiring practices and are not related to an entering employee's disability status.... On the other hand, a violation of § 12112(d)(3)(C) is contingent not only upon whether an employer conducted a post-offer medical examination, but also upon the entering employee's ability to demonstrate use of collected information not "in accordance" with subchapter I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(C). Thus, to recover under subsection 121I2(d)(3)(C) a plaintiff must show the employer used collected medical information to discriminate on the basis of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(b)(3). We remanded for a new trial on Mr. Garrison's § 12112(d)(3) claim, which included the possibility of recov- ery for improper practices under subsections (A) or (B) as well as discriminatory use of exam results under subsection (C).... Therefore, nothing in our previous holding precluded Mr. Garrison from alleging Centrilift used exam results to discriminate in violation of § 12112(d)(3)(C). 5.... We do not hold the Americans with Disabilities Act forbids withdrawing condi- tional job offers from entering employees who lie on medical questionnaires. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Technical Assistance Manual § 9.8. Rather, we hold sufficient evidence existed in this case of an alternative discrimina- tory motive to sustain a jury verdict in favor of Mr. Garrison.

7. Nevertheless, employers may not use gathered workers' compensation information however it chooses. Employers may only withdraw job offers for reasons "in accord- ace" with subchapter I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(C). Where substantial evidence shows an employer used entrance exam- ination information to withdraw a job offer for reasons not in accordance with the act, a jury verdict favoring an entering employee will stand.

8. This instruction reads: You are instructed that in order to recover on his claim under the [American with Dis- abilities Actl, Plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. Defendant made Plaintiff an offer of employment conditioned upon Plaintiff's suc- cessful completion of a medical examination by Defendant's doctor; and 2. Plaintiff successfully completed the medical examination by Defendant's doctor. A separate related instruction further explained: To "successfully complete" a medical examination and/or inquiry means that the employer conducted a medical examination and/or inquiry of Plaintiff and from that concluded Plaintiff was capable in performing the work at Defendant's facility for which Plaintiff had been conditionally hired. Plaintiff does not "successfully complete" a medical examination and/or inquiry if the conditional job offer is withdrawn based on the results of such examination and/ or inquiry and the reasons for the withdrawal of the offer are job-related and consist- ent with business necessity.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4 4 1
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0