Jonathan Maples, a shareholder in Carr Allison’s Mobile, Alabama office, obtained summary judgment for an industrial contractor in an ADA claim filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against when an offer of employment was rescinded after a post-offer medical examination resulted in work restrictions which rendered Plaintiff unqualified for the position. Plaintiff argued that the employer discriminated against the employee by failing to accommodate the employee, failing to hire the employee and by failing to engage in the interactive process.
The Defendant argued that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, was not a qualified individual as required by the ADA, and that, in any event, the employer’s rationale for rescinding the Plaintiff’s offer of employment was legitimate and non-discriminatory. The Court agreed with all three arguments, finding that the Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, was not a qualified individual as required by the ADA and that the employer’s proffered reason for rescinding Plaintiff’s job offer was legitimate and non-discriminatory. The Court expressly concluded that the employer was entitled to rely upon the restrictions assigned by third-party medical providers, as there was no evidence that these providers engaged in discrimination in reaching their conclusions.
