By Jim Cline and Amy Liden
In City of Chicago, an Illinois federal district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of a prospective firefighter/EMT who was denied employment due to his mental health conditions.
Sintos applied to work as a firefighter/EMT for the City of Chicago in 2014. He passed the written exam and was placed on the eligibility list. In 2018, he was invited to proceed with his application. After successfully passing the drug screening, background investigation, and physical test, the City offered him a job, conditioned on medical clearance.
Sintos had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. He attempted suicide in 2014 but had made no further attempts since then. By 2018–2019, his mental health conditions were well managed and considered mild. As part of the medical clearance process, he disclosed his past suicide attempt and his treatment for depression and anxiety.
Dr. Wong, who made medical clearance decisions for firefighter/EMT candidates for the City, conducted three mental health screening tests on Sintos and concluded that he suffered from minimal depression and low anxiety. Dr. Wong then referred Sintos to Dr. Goldstein for a pre-hire psychological suitability screening. This screening does not assess whether candidates are fit for duty but rather serves as a “risk assessment” of a candidate’s likely success as a firefighter/EMT. Dr. Goldstein informed Dr. Wong that Sintos scored “unacceptable,” and therefore did not resemble typical candidates who completed the probationary period. Based on this conclusion, Dr. Wong denied Sintos medical clearance, and the City withdrew its employment offer.
Sintos sued, arguing that the City discriminated against him by not hiring him due to his mental health conditions. He also argued the City did not administer the psychological suitability screening to all incoming employees and thus discriminated against him by using the screening results to withdraw his employment offer.
The City responded that medical clearance, including the psychological suitability screening, is necessary to ensure firefighters/EMTs can perform essential job functions. The City also asserted that Sintos had not applied for positions with other fire departments and thus failed to mitigate his damages.
The Court agreed with Sintos. First, it found that Dr. Wong denied him medical clearance solely due to his mental health conditions, establishing causation for the ADA claim. Second, the City provided no evidence that Sintos posed a safety risk to others if employed as a firefighter/EMT. Dr. Wong’s denial was based on a generalized assumption that depression and suicidal ideation posed a safety risk to others. Third, the psychological suitability screening does not assess whether candidates are fit for duty, so the City could not require certain individuals to undergo it or use its results as a basis for hiring decisions. Fourth, the City provided no evidence that Sintos could have applied to comparable positions after being denied employment. As the Court noted:
“[H]ad all other factors remained the same and Sintos not been disabled, Dr. Wong would not have denied him medical clearance.”
Therefore, the Court found sufficient causation for the ADA claim and denied the City’s defenses.
This case presents some interesting issues that are likely to provide future challenges to public safety department hiring practices. Most first responder employers use rigorous background checks as a key part of their hiring process. Increasingly psychological testing is a component of that process. It is common practice to screen out candidates whose background check reveals behavioral problems. It is also common, if not almost uniform practice to screen out candidates who receive a negative psych recommendation.
This case challenges the assumption that a negative psych recommendation can be solely relied on to deny employment. The ADA and other disability laws prohibit making hiring decisions based on medical conditions without a careful evaluation of whether the employee can actually perform the essential functions of the job. The primary purpose of the ADA was to prohibit applying stereotyping or generalized assumptions about how a particular medical condition could impact someone’s ability to work and to deny employment based on those assumptions.
The key fact here is that despite the employees past mental health struggles, the employee had those conditions well managed. Denying employment where no current fitness for duty question existed was predictably found to be an ADA violation.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on Rights of Injured and Disabled Public Safety Employees and Mental Health Issues**
