## Facts

- White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA) employed Emily Kroll as an emergency medical technician (EMT) beginning in 2003.
- Coworkers described Kroll as a good EMT who followed protocol, cared appropriately for patients, and worked well with others; she had no formal discipline in nearly five years.
- In 2007, Kroll began a volatile romantic relationship with a married coworker, which led to arguments and emotional episodes at work.
- During one shift, Kroll argued with her partner about the relationship and was reported to have refused to assist in providing patient care; the incident was reported to WLAA’s director.
- The director required Kroll to attend psychological counseling; he did not consult medical or psychological professionals before imposing the requirement.
- Record evidence indicated the director referenced Kroll’s “immoral” conduct and personal behavior when explaining the counseling requirement.
- Kroll refused to attend the counseling, and WLAA terminated her employment.
- Kroll sued under the ADA, alleging WLAA required a prohibited medical examination not shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).
- After an earlier appeal held the counseling could qualify as a “medical examination,” the district court on remand granted summary judgment to WLAA based on “business necessity,” and Kroll appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine dispute of material fact that WLAA’s mandatory psychological counseling requirement was not job-related and consistent with business necessity under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to dispute whether the counseling requirement was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- The court did not decide that WLAA violated the ADA; it held that disputed facts and credibility questions prevented summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), an employer may not require a medical examination or disability-related inquiry of an employee unless the employer shows the examination or inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- Once a required examination is shown, the employer bears the burden of proving the business-necessity exception applies.
- The business-necessity exception is narrow and requires an objective, evidence-based basis tied to job performance or safety; subjective concerns or moral disapproval of personal conduct do not suffice.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where the record permits competing inferences about the employer’s true motive and the existence of a job-related, necessity-based justification for the examination.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a jury could reasonably find WLAA ordered psychological counseling based on moral disapproval and limited performance evidence rather than an objective safety or job-performance necessity, so the ADA business-necessity question could not be resolved on summary judgment.


Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 763 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2014)