## Facts

- In 2010, Adam LaFata applied for a plant engineer position with Dearborn Heights School District No. 7 (the District).
- The plant engineer job description listed physical duties including climbing ladders and lifting 55 pounds or more.
- LaFata had worked for about 10 years as a building supervisor at a community center, where he regularly used ladders, carried items weighing more than 40 pounds, and handled full inside-and-outside building maintenance.
- The District extended LaFata a conditional job offer, contingent on passing a post-offer physical examination.
- The District sent LaFata to Dr. Joel Perlson, who performed what the record characterized as a cursory examination.
- Dr. Perlson concluded LaFata had a “muscle-wasting disease” and could not perform two essential functions as the doctor described them: working above ground level and lifting more than 40 pounds.
- The District revoked the conditional offer based on Dr. Perlson’s conclusion; the record indicated the District acted before fully reviewing the report and without discussing possible reasonable accommodations.
- LaFata sued alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). (He did not pursue an initially pleaded GINA claim.)
- After discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District argued LaFata was not physically qualified, and that employing him would pose a “direct threat” to himself and others. At oral argument, the District also argued LaFata was not disabled because he had performed similar work.

## Issues

1. Whether LaFata produced evidence that he was a qualified individual under the ADA and PWDCRA, able to perform the plant engineer job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether the District violated the ADA and PWDCRA by rescinding a conditional job offer based on a post-offer medical examination without a job-specific, individualized evaluation of LaFata’s actual abilities and without considering reasonable accommodation.
3. Whether the District established, as a matter of law, that LaFata posed a “direct threat” justifying withdrawal of the offer.

## Decision

- The court denied the District’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted LaFata’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the District violated the ADA and the PWDCRA by revoking the conditional offer based on a cursory medical opinion without an individualized, evidence-based assessment tied to the actual job demands and LaFata’s demonstrated work history.
- The court rejected the District’s “direct threat” defense on this record because the District relied on a conclusory medical restriction rather than objective evidence from a meaningful, individualized risk assessment.
- The court rejected the District’s argument that LaFata could not be disabled merely because he had worked in a similar position; the record supported liability under the ADA/PWDCRA standards applied in the case.

## Legal Principles

- An employer that uses post-offer medical examination results to withdraw a conditional offer must base the decision on a job-related, individualized assessment of the applicant’s present ability to perform essential functions.
- A blanket acceptance of a brief or conclusory medical recommendation, without considering the applicant’s actual work history and other available evidence, does not satisfy the ADA’s individualized-assessment requirement.
- Before excluding an applicant for inability to perform essential functions, the ADA requires consideration of whether reasonable accommodation would allow performance.
- The ADA “direct threat” defense requires objective, medically supportable evidence and an individualized evaluation of the specific risk in the specific job, including whether any reasonable accommodation would reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
- The fact that an applicant has performed similar work may be relevant to qualification, but it does not automatically defeat an ADA disability theory, including where the employer treats the applicant as unable to perform key tasks based on an impairment-related assessment.

## Conclusion

LaFata held that the District violated the ADA and Michigan’s PWDCRA when it revoked a conditional plant engineer offer based largely on a cursory post-offer medical exam, without a job-specific individualized assessment and without addressing reasonable accommodations, and it failed to prove a valid “direct threat” justification on the summary-judgment record.


LaFata v. Dearborn Heights School District No. 7, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173731 (2013)