Employee Who Concealed Medical History Loses His ADA Claim

Takeaway: While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) bars many employer prehiring health inquiries, medical prescreening can be required for some physically taxing jobs. In such instances, an employee’s dishonesty about his or her medical history can justify termination. 

In August 2021, the plaintiff applied for a material handler position with ND Fairmont LLC (NDF), a paper product manufacturer that owns a mill in Fairmont, W.Va. Material handlers perform tasks such as product loading and inspection, and therefore they must meet certain physical requirements, such as lifting, pushing, stooping, and standing for long periods.

NDF extended the plaintiff an employment offer conditioned on his ability to pass a physical — a requirement for all new material handlers. NDF contracts with a third party, Industrial Therapy Solutions (ITS), to conduct post-offer physicals for its applicants. ITS clinicians assess each new hire’s musculoskeletal history and status and his or her safety in performing functional activities.

The plaintiff completed his physical on Sept. 8, 2021, including the accompanying paperwork in which he acknowledged that giving false, incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information would be cause for termination of employment. The plaintiff and an ITS clinician completed the health history questionnaire. In response to the question, “Do you have a back fracture, strain, sprain, pain, stiffness, weakness, scoliosis, disc injury, disc rupture, arthritis, or injury?” the plaintiff responded, “Never.” And when asked, “Have you seen a chiropractor, doctor, or physical/occupational therapist for your back?” the plaintiff also responded, “Never.”

The plaintiff passed his physical and began working for NDF in September 2021. He performed his job effectively during his first few weeks of employment. However, on Oct. 28, 2021, he suddenly called out of work, telling the NDF HR manager that he could not sleep and would not be safe to work that day. He then asked to meet the HR manager the next day. 

The HR manager met the plaintiff in her office with NDF’s environmental health and safety manager. The plaintiff disclosed that he had undergone three back surgeries in the past two years and had a metal rod in his back. He explained that he sometimes experienced back spasms and that the spasms were the real reason he missed work the day before. He added that he did not provide any information about his back injury during his physical.

After the meeting, the HR manager communicated with ITS for the limited purpose of confirming the accuracy of the plaintiff’s statement that, as part of his post-offer examination, he did not disclose any information history relating to his back condition. ITS verified the omission and forwarded copies of the plaintiff’s informed consent checklist and questionnaire to the HR manager and the environmental health and safety manager. The HR manager concluded that the plaintiff provided false, incorrect, and misleading information during his examination. On Nov. 2, 2021, NDF terminated the plaintiff as a result of that misconduct.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against NDF, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff’s motion referenced unalleged ADA claims of breach of confidentiality and failure to accommodate.

NDF’s motion argued that the plaintiff was neither actually disabled nor regarded as disabled and that he failed to show he was terminated because he had a disability. NDF further argued that, even if he could allege discrimination, NDF had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge.

The district court granted summary judgment to NDF, and the plaintiff appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the 4th Circuit considered whether the plaintiff had presented a prima-facie case of discriminatory discharge. 

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that NDF terminated the plaintiff because he was dishonest. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. 

On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that NDF could not discipline him because his conduct was related to a disability and because NDF obtained confidential health information from ITS before firing him. The 4th Circuit reasoned, however, that misconduct arising from an alleged disability did not render NDF unable to discipline him for it. The court noted that the plaintiff had not alleged a breach of the ADA’s confidentiality provisions, even though he asserted in passing that NDF discriminated against him by using confidential health information.

As a result, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment to NDF.

Sigley v. ND Fairmont LLC, 4th Cir., No. 23-2013 (Feb. 21, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.