On April 1, 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the remedies available to nondisabled employees subjected to improper medical examinations or inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The court’s decision in Nawara v. Cook County establishes that nondisabled employees may recover back pay if subjected to improper medical examinations or inquiries.
Quick Hits
- The Seventh Circuit reiterated that the ADA’s limitation on medical exams and inquiries applies to all employees, not just those with a disability under the ADA.
- Hence, a nondisabled employee subjected to unlawful medical exams or inquiries may recover back pay if, for instance, the employee is off work without pay for some period or is discharged for refusing to undergo an improper medical examination.
- The court’s ruling highlights the importance of properly determining whether to require an employee to undergo a medical or mental health exam, i.e., to ensure that any such exam or inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Correctional officer John Nawara had several heated altercations with his supervisor and a heated interaction with human resources and a nurse. The Cook County sheriff’s office placed Nawara on paid leave and mandated he undergo a fitness-for-duty examination and sign medical authorization forms before he could return to work. Nawara refused, and when his paid leave expired, he was placed on unpaid leave. Four months later, Nawara decided to return to the sheriff’s office and returned the authorization forms and underwent a fitness-for-duty examination. Nawara was declared fit for duty and returned to work as a correctional officer.
While on leave, Nawara sued Cook County and the sheriff, alleging the compulsory fitness-for-duty examination and inquiry into his mental health violated §12112(d)(4) of the ADA, which provides:
[An employer] shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such an employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
A jury found for Nawara, determining that requiring him to have a fitness-for-duty exam and to complete medical authorization forms violated the ADA, but it awarded no damages. Nawara subsequently moved the district court to reinstate his seniority and award him back pay. The district court restored Nawara’s seniority but declined to award him back pay, finding that a plaintiff must have a disability under the ADA for a violation of §12112(d)(4) to constitute discrimination on account of disability and, thereby, support back pay.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judge’s determination on seniority but reversed on the denial of back pay. The court first noted the ADA provides: “No [employer] shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability ….” Id. §12112(a). Second, “[t]he prohibition against discrimination … in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries.” Id. §12112(d)(1). And, as to current employees, this means: “[An employer] shall not require a medical examination … of an employee …, unless such examination … is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Id. §12112(d)(4)(A) (emphasis added).
The Seventh Circuit read these provisions together to mean that “to prove a violation of §12112(d)(4) is to prove discrimination on the basis of disability under §12112(a).” In other words, because the restriction on medical exams applies to “an employee,” not just disabled employees, and an improper medical exam constitutes discrimination on account of disability under the ADA, nondisabled employees may recover back pay for the ADA violation. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine back pay.
