Unformatted text preview: ed according to what it reasonably
perceived as being job-related and a business necessity. When Sharp expressed that he
was unhappy with his position, Prevo's and Sharp agreed to place Sharp on paid leave.
Prevo's also provided Sharp with paid medical benefits to which he was not entitled as a
part-time employee. In the meantime, Sharp promised to provide Prevo's with the needed
medical information from his own physician. Even when Sharp failed to provide the
information, Prevo's continued to [*1098] pay his wages and medical insurance. Sharp
consented to undergo the medical examination at company expense after consulting his
The EEOC contends that the award of punitive damages should be upheld for the reason
that Prevo's violated the ADA by asking Sharp to submit to a medical examination and
then suspending him. We do not believe a reasonable juror would conclude Prevo's
exhibited any malicious or reckless [**29] behavior warranting a punitive damage award
in Sharp's favor. We note that Sharp agreed to the paid leave of absence and only sought
legal recourse for the medical examination requirement after he was fired. The EEOC
argues that the employer had a duty to obtain the current medical knowledge in order
to determine whether they could ask Sharp to submit to a medical examination, yet
Prevo's allowed 10 months to pass, then fired Sharp for not producing the medical
information. However, it was Sharp who continued to tell Prevo's he would soon provide
them with the information from his own doctor.
Even if what occurred in this case were a violation of the ADA, we do not believe a
reasonable juror would conclude that it was reckless behavior on the part of Prevo's to
ask Sharp to provide medical information from his personal doctor. Contrary to the
EEOC's argument, not every violation of the ADA is reckless; and, again, we find no
violation of the ADA by the employer under the circumstances of this case.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the EEOC on the issue of liability and enter summary [**30]
judgment in favor of Prevo's, holding that it did not violate the ADA in its treatment of
Sharp. Accordingly, we VACATE the award of compensatory damages, back pay, prejudgment interest and reinstatement. Having found no lia...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08