Professional Service Agreement

Employer Resolves Suit Over Failure to Conduct Individual Assessment After Medical Exams

July 31, 2017

Chemtrusion, Inc, has agreed to pay $145,000 and provide other relief to settle allegations that the Houston-based manufacturing services company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when, beginning in 2012, it refused to hire or provide reasonable accommodations to a class of job applicants at the company's Jeffersonville, Indiana, facility because of medical information it obtained during pre-employment medical examinations.

The company failed to conduct any individualized assessment of whether the applicants could perform essential job functions. The terms of the consent decree provide a roadmap for employers that want to ensure compliance with this area of the ADA.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Chemtrusion voluntarily negotiated the terms of the consent decree; the company did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. The terms of the decree ensure that Chemtrusion will comply with federal disability discrimination law going forward, according to Regional Attorney Kenneth L. Bird. They also remind employers that "applicants are entitled to an individualized assessment of whether they can do a job, with or without reasonable accommodation, before a company may rescind a job offer after a medical examination."

Compliance roadmap. In addition to the monetary relief, Chemtrusion agreed to several terms that also serve as a compliance roadmap for other employers:

  • Instruct hiring personnel and medical providers not to conduct medical inquiries until after a conditional offer is made;
  • Conduct individualized analysis before withdrawing job offers;
  • Train hiring personnel on what the ADA requires with respect to medical examinations and hiring;
  • Submit decisions to rescind job offers to legal counsel for review; and
  • Track rescinded offers.

The EEOC will monitor Chemtrusion’s compliance with the two-year decree.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division. The case number is 4:16-cv-00180.