## Facts

- Dura Automotive Systems operated a manufacturing facility in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee where employees worked around heavy machinery.
- After reports of drug use and workplace accidents, Dura implemented a plant-wide substance-abuse policy in 2007.
- Dura hired a third-party administrator to conduct urine drug testing for substances associated with illegal drugs and certain prescription medications bearing warnings about operating machinery.
- Under the policy, an initial positive test could result in the employee being sent home; Dura then required certain employees who tested positive to disclose prescription medications to the administrator, which reported “machine-restricted” drugs to Dura.
- Dura instructed employees to discontinue specified prescription medications and required retesting; after continued positives, Dura terminated the plaintiffs.
- A physician reviewing the positives ultimately indicated the plaintiffs’ prescribed medications would not impair job performance, but Dura enforced the policy and removed them from work.
- Plaintiffs (current or former employees) sued under ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A), alleging Dura subjected them to prohibited medical examinations and disability-related inquiries not justified by business necessity.
- The district court denied Dura’s Rule 50 motion, ruled as a matter of law that Dura’s conduct violated § 12112(d)(4)(A), and the jury found the examinations/inquiries were not job-related and consistent with business necessity.

## Issues

1. Whether Dura’s drug-testing regimen and related medication-disclosure demands constituted a “medical examination” under ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A).
2. Whether those practices constituted a “disability-related inquiry” under ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A).
3. Whether the district court erred by deciding the “medical examination” and “disability-related inquiry” elements as a matter of law rather than submitting them to the jury.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred by removing from the jury the fact-intensive questions whether Dura conducted a medical examination or disability-related inquiry.
- The court vacated the judgment on the § 12112(d)(4) claim and remanded for a new trial limited to (1) whether Dura’s conduct involved regulated examinations or inquiries and, if so, (2) whether they were job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- The court declined to adopt a categorical rule that tests detecting certain prescription drugs are always medical examinations.
- The court held a disability-related inquiry requires deliberate elicitation of information about disability; Dura’s intent was sufficiently disputed to require jury resolution.

## Legal Principles

- ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A) analysis proceeds in two steps: (1) whether the employer performed/authorized a medical examination or disability-related inquiry, and (2) if so, whether it was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- Whether a procedure is a “medical examination” commonly turns on the employer’s purpose and the nature of information the procedure is designed to reveal; employer intent is a key consideration.
- A “disability-related inquiry” requires that the employer deliberately seek information about an employee’s disability, not merely information about drugs or workplace-safety risks.
- When evidence about intent and function of testing/questioning is mixed, the “medical examination” and “disability-related inquiry” elements are for the jury, not for resolution as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that, on the record presented, a jury—not the court—had to decide whether Dura’s drug testing and compelled medication disclosures were ADA-regulated medical examinations or disability-related inquiries, and it vacated the plaintiffs’ § 12112(d)(4) verdict and remanded for a new trial on those elements and any required business-necessity justification.


Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2014)