## Facts

- The New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) maintained a Sick Leave Directive requiring certain employees returning from sick leave to submit medical certification.
- The certification had to include a “general diagnosis,” sufficiently informative to allow DOCS to assess leave eligibility and whether a return-to-work examination might be needed.
- Supervisors could require certification after specified absences and, where they suspected “attendance abuse,” could require certification for absences of any length.
- A corrections employee challenged the “general diagnosis” requirement under the ADA’s limits on medical examinations and disability-related inquiries of current employees, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- DOCS argued the directive was needed to verify medical absences, deter sick-leave abuse, and support safety and fitness-for-duty determinations in a correctional environment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the employee and denied DOCS’s summary-judgment motion, ruling the policy was a prohibited inquiry and DOCS failed to prove business necessity.
- DOCS appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a “general diagnosis” in sick-leave medical certification is a prohibited disability-related inquiry under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).
2. If the requirement is an ADA-regulated inquiry, whether it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held the “general diagnosis” requirement is an ADA-regulated inquiry because it tends to reveal a disability or subject an employee to disability-based perceptions.
- The court affirmed the determination that the policy falls within § 12112(d)(4)(A)’s prohibition absent a valid justification.
- The court vacated summary judgment for the employee because the record contained genuine disputes of material fact on DOCS’s business-necessity defense.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on whether the inquiry was necessary and appropriately limited.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), employers generally may not require medical examinations or make disability-related inquiries of current employees unless the examination or inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- An inquiry can be “disability-related” if it is likely to elicit information about a disability; actual disclosure in a particular instance is not required.
- Facial neutrality does not remove an inquiry from ADA scrutiny; the focus is on the nature of the information sought and its tendency to reveal disability-related information.
- The business-necessity exception is narrow; the employer must show a legitimate business purpose and that the inquiry is no broader or more intrusive than necessary.
- Generalized assertions about safety or attendance control may be insufficient at summary judgment; the employer must support necessity and tailoring with evidence, including how the policy operates and why less intrusive alternatives would not meet the need.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit treated DOCS’s “general diagnosis” sick-leave certification requirement as an ADA-regulated disability-related inquiry but held that whether it was justified by business necessity could not be resolved on summary judgment, requiring remand for fact-finding on necessity and tailoring.


Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003)