The Seventh Circuit
recently held an employer’s rescission of an employment offer upon learning the
prospective employee suffered from uncontrolled seizures did not violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Russell Pontinen (“Pontinen”) applied to work
as a Utility Person at United States Steel Corporation’s (“USS”) Midwest Plant
and received a contingent employment offer. After an investigation, USS discovered
that Pontinen suffered from an uncontrolled seizure disorder that imposed work
restrictions on him. The restrictions conflicted with the requirements of the
position for which he applied; so, USS rescinded the employment offer. Pontinen
sued for disability discrimination under the ADA, and the district court
granted USS’s motion for summary judgment.
The Seventh Circuit
affirmed judgment in USS’s favor because it is permissible under the ADA to
require that a potential employee not pose a direct threat to the health or
safety of others in the workplace, even if such a requirement tends to
discriminate. The employer has the burden to show the requirement is necessary
to prevent a direct threat.
The Seventh Circuit
agreed that whether Pontinen posed a direct threat was not in genuine dispute. Although
Pontinen’s seizures were well-controlled on medication, Pontinen had stopped
taking his medication without his doctor’s approval. The Utility Person position
at USS involved working with and around multiple pieces of highly dangerous
equipment. Given the potential catastrophic consequences of losing
consciousness in this dangerous setting, the Court found that the nature and
severity of the risk necessarily weighed in favor of a direct threat finding.
The Court explained that because all the factors weighed in favor of finding that there was a direct threat, it was compelled to reach that conclusion at summary judgment. While Pontinen could point to a few pieces of evidence that supported the idea that he was doing well, he could not point to evidence that created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding USS’s decision to rescind his employment offer because he constituted a threat. USS’s determination relied on appropriate evidence, was made after an individualized assessment, and revealed an uncontrolled seizure disorder that would create an intolerable risk in the workplace. As this case illustrates, employers must be mindful of complying with the ADA and protecting the health and safety of its workforce and customers.
