Sixth Circuit greenlights fitness-for-duty evaluations in employee's challenge based on refusing unwanted medical treatment
In a decision released over the summer, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decides cases based on federal law in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, has upheld a government employer’s right to order employees to undergo fitness-for-duty evaluations when questions emerge as to whether they can competently perform their job-related responsibilities.
Acting on concerns that an employee had made startling threats of physical harm against his supervisors, in 2021, Saginaw County, Michigan, ordered a maintenance employee to go on paid administrative leave and sit for a fitness-for-duty exam conducted by the county’s independently hired psychologist. The employee complied, and the psychologist reported to the county that the employee did not have the ability to perform his job-related functions and encouraged a fuller neuropsychological evaluation. Fearing he had a disability protected under the Americans with Disability Act, the county continued the employee’s paid leave and asked for both a follow-up fitness-for-duty exam as well as a meeting to determine whether any accommodations could be made to keep him employed. When the employee failed to show at that meeting, the county terminated him.
The employee sued, alleging the county denied him procedural due process because he claims to have had “a constitutionally protected interest in refusing his fitness-for-duty evaluations.” He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” protects his right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including fitness-for-duty evaluations.
The court noted that fitness-for-duty evaluations based on legitimate, job-related concerns can be useful employer tools to determine employees’ competency and protect coworkers and others. Relying on cases from around the country, the panel cautioned that employers can overstep their bounds when they order fitness-for-duty exams under threat of unpaid leave, or based only on stigmatizing untruths made about an employee, or when confidential medical information unrelated to job performance is required to be disclosed. But here, the employee instead urged the court to adopt an argument that gave him a constitutionally protected right to refuse medical treatment by declining to be evaluated.
The Sixth Circuit refused to make that leap. It held instead that the two fitness-for-duty evaluations, the first of which recommended only an additional examination and did not prescribe treatment, and the second of which would have only been a follow-up psychological test to determine whether he was competent to perform his work, did not involve “intrusions” amounting to medical treatment. The county “did not arbitrarily subject [the employee] to a fitness-for-duty evaluation, but acted upon specific allegations that [he] had threatened violence, which had been reported to a supervisor and then reiterated in a formal written submission,” the court wrote. “Even when affording due consideration to [his] rights as an employee, the county had a countervailing duty and responsibility to protect the interests, well-being, and safety of employees and others in the workplace against threats of violence or the potentiality of violence from other employees.” The court concluded that this effort was reasonable and responsible.
The upshot is that employers maintain the right to require fitness-for-duty evaluations based on legitimate, employment-based concerns without providing additional due process. We would add that doing so while placing affected employees on paid administrative leave would appear to foreclose the success of any procedural due-process claims the employee might bring.
The case is Capen v. Saginaw County, Michigan, and you can read the decision here. Let us know if we can guide you through any difficult employee situations.
