Medical Examination Under the ADA as Discrimination on the Basis of Disability and Entitlement to Back Pay

Introduction

John Nawara, a correctional officer employed by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office since 1998, engaged in a series of workplace confrontations in 2016–2017 that led his superiors to deem him in need of a fitness‐for‐duty medical examination. When Nawara initially refused to sign two medical information release forms, the Sheriff’s Office placed him on leave—first paid, then unpaid—until he relented months later and returned to duty. Claiming violation of § 12112(d)(4)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Nawara sued Cook County and Sheriff Thomas Dart in the Northern District of Illinois. After a jury found an ADA violation but awarded zero damages, the district court granted partial equitable relief (restoring seniority) while denying back pay. Both sides appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Key issues:

Whether requiring and inquiring into medical information under § 12112(d)(4)(A) constitutes “discrimination on the basis of disability” for purposes of back‐pay relief.
Whether seniority restoration remains a live controversy after Nawara’s transfer to the Sheriff’s Police division.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 1, 2025, the Seventh Circuit:

Held that a violation of § 12112(d)(4)(A) (requiring a fitness-for-duty examination and medical records without job-related necessity) is by definition “discrimination on the basis of disability” under § 12112(a), thus triggering the availability of back‐pay relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). It reversed the district court’s denial of back‐pay and remanded for further proceedings on that remedy.
Affirmed the district court’s order restoring Nawara’s seniority. The Court rejected the Sheriff’s mootness argument, noting that seniority credits remain beneficial in tie‐breaking and other administrative contexts in the Sheriff’s Office.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Kurtzhals v. County of Dunn, 969 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2020): Established that § 12112(d)(4)(A) applies to all employees—disabled or not—and allows a claim for unlawful medical examinations even absent an actual or perceived disability.
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747 (1976): Confirmed that courts may restore seniority as equitable relief in employment‐discrimination cases.
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427 (2019): Emphasized that plain statutory language controls when the text is unambiguous.
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989): Reinforced that courts enforce statutes according to their terms when the language is clear.
Other Title VII and ADA cases, including Vega v. Chicago Park District, Mosby‐Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, Stragapede v. City of Evanston, and Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, which affirmed back‐pay awards where disability‐based discrimination was found.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis turned on two statutory frameworks:

ADA § 12112(a) & (d) – Section 12112(a) broadly prohibits “discrimination on the basis of disability” in all terms and conditions of employment. Subsection (d)(1) expressly incorporates medical examinations and disability‐related inquiries into that prohibition; thus, any violation of § 12112(d)(4)(A) is itself discrimination on the basis of disability.
Remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 – The ADA’s enforcement provision, § 12117(a), imports Title VII’s remedies, including back pay under § 2000e-5(g)(1). A limitation in § 2000e-5(g)(2) deprives courts of back pay awards only when an employee is “suspended … for any reason other than discrimination on account of” a protected characteristic. The Court held that discrimination by forcing an ADA‐barred medical inquiry qualifies as discrimination “on account of disability,” thus defeating the limitation and permitting back pay.

3. Impact on Future Cases

Clarifies that any unauthorized medical examination or disability‐related inquiry under § 12112(d)(4)(A) automatically counts as discrimination on the basis of disability for remedial purposes.
Expands the scope of equitable relief available in ADA suits—claimants need not prove an actual or perceived disability to obtain back pay for § 12112(d) violations.
Reinforces generous statutory construction in favor of broad enforcement of the ADA’s anti‐discrimination mandate.
Reaffirms that restoration of seniority remains live where it confers future employment benefits, even after employees transfer within public agencies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 12112(d)(4)(A) – Prohibits employers from demanding medical exams or disability‐related questions unless strictly job‐related and necessary for business. Think of it as an “irrelevant personal question” rule to protect employee privacy and autonomy.
Back Pay – Monetary compensation for wages, pension contributions, and benefits lost during the period of unlawful employment action.
Seniority Restoration – Reinstatement of an employee’s accumulated service credits, which often determine promotions, shift preferences, vacation priority, and tie‐breaking in layoffs.
Title VII Incorporation – The ADA’s enforcement section borrows Title VII’s procedures and remedies wholesale, adapting them to disability discrimination cases.
Statutory Construction Canons – Principles like the “plain meaning” rule (if clear, enforce the text) and the “nearest‐reasonable‐referent” canon (link modifiers to the closest applicable phrase) guided the Court’s interpretation.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s holding cements a new precedent: any forced medical examination or disability‐related inquiry that fails the ADA’s strict “job‐related and business‐necessity” test is per se discrimination on the basis of disability for purposes of relief. As a result, victims of such violations may claim back pay under Title VII’s remedial scheme, broadening the ADA’s protective reach. Moreover, the decision underscores that equitable relief like seniority restoration remains vital and enforceable even when employees change roles within a public employer. This ruling thus strengthens workplace privacy rights, clarifies the availability of monetary remedies under the ADA, and charts a clear course for future claims of unauthorized disability inquiries.