Please be advised that contacting Miller Johnson or one of its attorneys by email does not constitute establishing an attorney-client relationship or otherwise confidential relationship between you and the Firm. Please do not give us any information you regard as confidential until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Any information you give to us before establishing an attorney-client relationship will not be regarded as privileged or confidential. Do you wish to proceed?
"*" indicates required fields
You observe an employee acting oddly at work. But, the employee’s work has not suffered. You don’t think the employee is truly a harm to himself, but they’re just…a bit off.
What can you do without violating the law? Specifically, how can an employer inform themselves on whether an employee’s odd behavior is actually a “direct threat” or “job-related” under the ADA (and, therefore- would make requiring a fitness-for-duty exam legal)? What can an employer do before a fitness-for-duty request?
In the 6th Circuit, we follow the parameter: “That an employee’s behavior could be described as ‘annoying or inefficient [does not] justify an examination; rather, there must be genuine reason to doubt whether that employee can perform job-related functions.”
The employer has the flexibility to do the following without violating the ADA’s fitness-for-duty requirements or turning the situation into a “regarded as disabled” issue: