New ADA Ruling Gives Non-Disabled Workers Ammo to Seek Lost Pay

The Seventh Circuit laid down a new, worker-friendly precedent that more employees can use to challenge medical examinations and win damages without proving they have a disability, discrimination attorneys said.

In a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled April 1 that a former Illinois corrections officer could recoup back pay in an Americans with Disabilities Act case accusing his employer of requiring an unlawful fitness-for-duty test. The worker, John Nawara, never claimed he was disabled or that his employer perceived him as having a disability—a typical requirement for ADA discrimination claims.

“It seems to be fairly unprecedented,” said William Goren, an ADA attorney and consultant. “It kind of put teeth into employers to say, ‘Maybe we should try to make sure that our system for medical inquiries, disability-related inquiries, and medical exams is set up properly.’”

The decision could drive similar ADA lawsuits in the circuit from workers regardless of their disability status, attorneys said. The Seventh Circuit includes federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

“The ruling may encourage more employees to challenge unlawful medical examinations and inquiries, knowing that they can seek back pay even without proving disability discrimination,” said Amy Epstein Gluck, a partner at management-side firm Pierson Ferdinand LLP. “This could lead not only to an increase in ADA-related litigation, but to confusion for employers as to when and how to accommodate qualified individuals with a disability.”

Broadened Scope?

Nawara was placed on paid leave, and later unpaid leave, after he had “heated altercations” with his superior officer and an HR manager, according to the Seventh Circuit. Officials required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty test to evaluate his mental health before he could return to work.

He ultimately prevailed at trial on claims that the Cook County Sheriff’s Office didn’t show that the medical exam was related to his job and necessary for its business. But the district court declined to award him back pay because he didn’t show “discrimination on account of disability.”

In reversing that judgment, the Seventh Circuit found that a violation of the ADA’s prohibition on medical exams or inquires about a worker’s disability status is itself “discrimination on account of disability.” That triggered other statutory provisions allowing back pay awards.

The decision aligns with the Sixth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems Inc., which held that workers without disabilities can recover back pay for impermissible medical exams. That case was raised by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Justice Department in an amicus brief backing Nawara.

The federal government’s interpretation of bias under the ADA intends to safeguard workers against intrusive medical inquiries that aren’t job-related or consistent with business needs, Gluck said.

But the new ruling “broadens its scope in the Seventh Circuit,” she added.

“I don’t think this is the legislative intent or history behind the ADA, which was enacted to remediate for discrimination perpetrated against individuals with a disability, those regarded or perceived as having a disability, and individuals with a record of a disability,” said Gluck.

An Open Question

The Seventh Circuit’s decision comes as federal courts assess the scope of the US Supreme Court’s 2024 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision, which lowered the threshold for the type of harm needed to support discrimination claims.

It allows workers to show they’ve experienced “some harm” that left them “worse off” regarding their employment, and that holding is already reshaping litigation under the ADA and other workplace anti-bias laws.

Muldrow’s applicability wasn’t at issue in Nawara’s case. However, the panel left open the question of whether a worker who didn’t face an adverse action would be entitled to back pay under the ADA, attorneys said.

The court didn’t explain “what it would do if an improper medical exam is disability discrimination, but there was no injury” that affected the terms and conditions of a worker’s employment, said Tracy M. Billows, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

“That is really going to be the key inquiry going forward in the Seventh Circuit for employers,” she said.

The case is Nawara v. Cook Cnty. Municipality, 7th Cir., No. 22-01393.