## Facts

- Russell Pontinen, who had experienced several seizures over his lifetime, applied for a safety-sensitive “Utility Person” job at a steel plant operating year-round with heavy machinery, moving vehicles and cranes, and extreme heat.
- Pontinen received a contingent employment offer subject to medical and safety review.
- Pontinen reported an aura before seizures that could provide roughly 30 seconds to two minutes of warning.
- His treating neurologist initially described the seizure disorder as not well controlled, prescribed medication, and repeatedly warned him not to miss doses; the record reflected intermittent noncompliance and Pontinen’s desire to reduce or discontinue medication.
- United States Steel reviewed Pontinen’s medical records, consulted medical professionals, and evaluated the job’s hazards and essential functions.
- The company concluded the seizure disorder posed unacceptable safety risk, imposed restrictions (e.g., no work at heights, limits around certain mobile equipment and unguarded moving machinery), and rescinded the offer because the restrictions conflicted with the job’s requirements.
- Pontinen sued under the ADA; the district court granted summary judgment for United States Steel on the ground that Pontinen posed a “direct threat.” Pontinen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether rescinding the conditional job offer violated the ADA, or whether United States Steel established the ADA “direct threat” defense that Pontinen would pose a significant risk of substantial harm that could not be reduced by reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether the employer’s direct-threat determination was adequately supported by objective, individualized evidence, considering the regulatory factors for risk assessment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for United States Steel.
- The court held the employer met its burden to show Pontinen’s seizure disorder would pose a direct threat to himself and others in the steel-plant environment.
- The court found the direct-threat determination was individualized and grounded in adequate evidence, including medical records, the neurologist’s warnings about seizure risk and medication adherence, and the specific hazards and essential functions of the Utility Person role.
- The court concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the seizure risk, in combination with the job’s dangers, created a significant risk of substantial harm.
- The court accepted that the restrictions necessary to reduce risk would prevent Pontinen from performing essential job functions, and the ADA did not require the employer to accept an unreduced direct threat or eliminate essential functions.

## Legal Principles

- The ADA permits excluding an individual who poses a “direct threat,” meaning a significant risk of substantial harm to the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.
- A direct-threat finding must rest on an individualized assessment using reasonable medical judgment based on current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence.
- The assessment must consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood that harm will occur, and the imminence of potential harm.
- Summary judgment is proper where undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff would pose a direct threat in the position even with accommodation, or where proposed restrictions would negate essential functions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the employer’s withdrawal of a conditional offer for a hazardous, safety-sensitive steel-plant position because the employer conducted an individualized, evidence-based risk assessment and proved that the applicant’s seizure disorder created a significant, ongoing safety risk that could not be sufficiently reduced without preventing performance of essential job duties.


Pontinen v. United States Steel Corp., 26 F.4th 401 (7th Cir. 2022)