## Facts

- Geneva Johnston worked as a food server at a Birmingham, Alabama restaurant operated by Morrison, Inc. from September 18, 1992 to December 31, 1992.
- Johnston alleged medical conditions including mitral valve prolapse, dysautonomia, panic attack disorder, and hypoglycemia, and asserted they affected her ability to perform server duties.
- Morrison learned of Johnston’s conditions after she began working and assigned her to the least busy station with the fewest customers.
- On December 31, 1992, the restaurant became crowded; Johnston experienced a “meltdown” and could not handle the work pressure.
- Johnston alleged that during the incident a manager, Michael Mitchell, grabbed and twisted her arm and dug his fingernails into her skin, breaking the skin.
- Johnston challenged Morrison’s job application, which asked applicants to identify any physical condition that might limit their ability to perform the job applied for.

## Issues

1. Whether the application question about a physical condition limiting job performance violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)(A) as a prohibited pre-employment disability inquiry.
2. Whether Johnston was a “qualified individual with a disability” who could perform the essential functions of a food server position with or without reasonable accommodation.
3. Whether the evidence supported a state-law assault and battery claim against Mitchell sufficient to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for Morrison, Inc. and Mitchell on all claims, and the action was dismissed.
- The application question was held not to violate the ADA’s pre-employment inquiry prohibition because it was framed as an ability-to-perform inquiry, not a question about disability status or severity.
- Johnston was held not to be a qualified individual under the ADA because she could not perform essential server functions even with reasonable accommodation.
- The court rejected accommodations that would effectively shift essential server duties to co-workers or otherwise materially alter the position’s core requirements.
- Summary judgment was granted on the assault and battery claim because the record did not support a triable finding of actionable tortious conduct under the circumstances presented.

## Legal Principles

- ADA § 12112(d)(2)(A) bars pre-offer medical examinations and inquiries about whether an applicant has a disability or about the nature or severity of a disability, but it permits job-related questions about an applicant’s ability to perform job functions.
- ADA protection requires proof that the plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability,” meaning the plaintiff can perform the position’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to eliminate essential functions, permanently reassign essential tasks to others, or provide co-worker labor so the employee can perform core duties.
- On summary judgment, a tort claim must be supported by evidence from which a reasonable jury could find each element; brief physical contact occurring in the course of managing a workplace incident may be insufficient absent evidence of actionable intent and offensiveness under applicable state law.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the case at summary judgment, finding no unlawful ADA pre-employment inquiry, no triable ADA discrimination claim because the plaintiff was not qualified to perform essential server functions with reasonable accommodation, and insufficient evidence to sustain an assault and battery claim on the summary-judgment record.


Johnston v. Morrison, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 777 (N.D. Ala. 1994)