29 C.F.R. § 1630.13
Prohibited medical examinations and inquiries
(a) Pre-employment examination or inquiry. Except as permitted by § 1630.14, it is unlawful for a covered entity to conduct a medical examination of an applicant or to make inquiries as to whether an applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
(b) Examination or inquiry of employees. Except as permitted by § 1630.14, it is unlawful for a covered entity to require a medical examination of an employee or to make inquiries as to whether an employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Martin v. State of Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 1999).
Martin v. State of Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 1999). “); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b). 9 And, under § 12112(d)(4)(B), an employer is explicitly authorized to “make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Prevo's Fam. Mkt., Inc., 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b) App. (1996). 7 The regulations provide an example of prohibited medical examination: “[I]f an employee suddenly starts to use increased amounts of sick leave or starts to appear sickly, an employer could not require that employee to be tested for AIDS,…”
Emily Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 691 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2012). “’”) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b)). The EEOC has explained that this restriction “reflect[s] Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to ensure that individuals in the workplace…”
Velma Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2014). “’” (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b))). There is no business justification for an employer to inquire into whether its employees are impaired if the employer is going to disregard the nature and limitations of that impairment.”
Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b) App. (1996). Id. at 1094 .”
Harrison v. Benchmark Elec. Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (“[I]t is unlawful for a covered entity to conduct a medical examination of an applicant or to make inquiries as to whether an applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.”
Brad Sandefur v. Thomas Dart, 979 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 2020). “§ 12112 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 . These provi- sions of the ADA strike a balance.”
Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 283 F. Supp. 3d 72 (S.D. Ill. 2017). “§ 12112 (d)(4)(A) ; see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.13 (b) ; 1630.14(c). In addition, the ADA permits covered entities to "make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.”
Denman v. Davey Tree Expert Co., 266 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir. 2007). “The focus is on the nature of job relatedness and what constitutes a business necessity. The interpretative guidelines to the ADA explain that the statute was intended to prevent against “medical tests and inquiries that do not serve a legitimate business purpose.”
Conrad v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Commissioners, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002). “§ 12112 (d)(4); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b)). 31 . Id. at 1298 .”
Rodriguez v. Loctite Puerto Rico, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 653 (D.P.R. 1997). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 (b). Thus, where an employer develops a suspicion regarding the employee’s health, but has no justified concern about employee’s ability to perform her job, the ADA prevents the employer from requiring the employee to submit to a medical examination.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 531 F. Supp. 2d 930 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “§ 12112 (d)(3)(B); see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.13 , 1630.14. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the above provision when his direct supervisors disseminated the plaintiffs medical information to his coworkers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.