Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc.

593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Aerotek, a company that places temporary workers at D, assigned P to work at D. P worked as a 'debug tech,' and his responsibilities included identifying problems with, repairing, and testing electronic boards. P suffers from epilepsy and takes barbiturates to control his condition. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that P did not have a disability as defined under the ADA. D screens temporary employees for possible permanent employment. On May 19, 2006, P submitted an application for permanent employment, at the request of his supervisor, Don Anthony. P consented to a drug test. Anthony told P to take the drug test, and P complied. P was at no time informed that his performance was deficient or that he had an attitude problem. In July 2006, Lena Williams, employed in D's human resources department, was notified that P's test had come back positive and was awaiting review by a Medical Review Officer (MRO). She asked Anthony to have P report to her but did not tell Anthony about the positive drug screen at any time, because she had a duty to keep such information confidential. In July 2006, Lena Williams, employed in D's human resources department, was notified that P's test had come back positive and was awaiting review by a Medical Review Officer (MRO). She asked Anthony to have P report to her but did not tell Anthony about the positive drug screen at any time, because she had a duty to keep such information confidential. On July 19, 2006, the MRO reported to Williams that P's drug test had been cleared. Anthony told human resources not to prepare an offer letter for P. Anthony then asked Aerotek not to return P to D. On August 18, 2006, Aerotek informed P that he would not be returning to D, because he had a performance and attitude problem, and because he had been accused of threatening Anthony. P was fired from Aerotek that same day. Anthony has asserted three reasons to support his decision not to hire P: (1) he was too busy preparing for a company-wide audit to extend the offer; (2) Harrison had made threats against him; and (3) several employees had expressed concern to him about Harrison's competence. D asserted that Anthony lacked the authority to hire P because corporate had closed all open positions and revoked all previously approved requisitions for employees, including the position for which P applied, on August 10, 2006. P sued D alleging various violations of the ADA: namely, that (1) D engaged in an improper medical inquiry, (2) he was not hired due to a perceived disability, and (3) he was terminated due to a perceived disability. D moved for summary judgment and it was granted. The court held that P could not make out a prima facie case for an improper medical inquiry. Because P 'tested positive for barbiturates,' the court held that D was then authorized to ask P whether he 'had a legitimate use for such medication.' P appealed.