Can My Employer Ask About Disabilities or Medical Conditions Like Immunodeficiency During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Although an employer typically may not ask you about your disability or medical condition, employers may argue that it is appropriate during the COVID-19 pandemic if they can establish that COVID-19 is a ā€œdirect threatā€ making you more susceptible to an adverse impact.

Currently, federal and state regulatory authorities have released useful guidance for employers and employees to understand the impact of COVID-19 upon existing laws involving disability discrimination. One such resource, which we encourage you to consider, is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionā€™s (the ā€œEEOCā€) guidance issued in an online article entitled,Ā ā€œPandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act.ā€

The EEOC Guidance is directed to employers who are subject to the American with Disabilities Act (the ā€œADAā€), which protects employees against disability discrimination. Californiaā€™s Fair Employment and Housing Act (ā€œFEHAā€) is similar to the ADA in many respects, and Californiaā€™s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the ā€œDFEHā€) has alsoĀ issued useful guidance.

As explained in the EEOC Guidance, generallyĀ during a pandemic that is akin to seasonal influenza or the 2009 H1N1 virus, it remains impermissibleĀ for your employer to ask you disability-related questions or to conduct a medical examination when you are asymptomatic. The EEOC hasĀ left open the question, however, whether COVID-19ā€™s severity provides the ADA-covered employer with ā€œsufficient objective informationā€ to ā€œreasonably concludeā€ that COVID-19 qualifies as a ā€œdirect threatā€ such that it may ask about other disabilities or medical conditionsĀ (non-COVID-19) that may make you more susceptible to adverse impact.

Employers May Try to Claim ā€˜Direct Threat

Indeed, COVID-19 being declared a ā€œglobal pandemicā€ by the World Health Organization (ā€œWHOā€) means that some ADA-covered employers will undoubtedly seek to rely on the ADAā€™s ā€œdirect threatā€ exception that permits employers to make disability-related inquiries when the employee (whether due to the pandemic or another medical condition or disability) poses a ā€œdirect threatā€ such that there is a ā€œsignificant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.ā€Ā SeeĀ 29 C.F.R. Ā§1630.2(r). According to the CDC, people who have serious underlying medical conditions may be at higher risk for more severe complications from COVID-19. As stated in the EEOC Guidance, COVID-19 itself will likely be held to meet the ā€œdirect threatā€ standard. Therefore, if you have COVID-19 symptoms, employers have been conducting screenings for COVID-19 and have somewhat more leeway in how they interact with employees concerning COVID-19 work conditions (the topic of other blog posts herein).

So while your employer (during the COVID-19 pandemic) may assert that it is permitted to take your temperature and ask about COVID-19 symptoms, it is unclear whether your employer may also ask you aboutĀ non-COVID-19Ā medical conditions or disabilities that place you (or others) at greater risk for harm.

Whether your non-COVID-19 disability presents a ā€œdirect threatā€ will depend on:

  • The duration of the risk
  • The nature and severity of the potential harm
  • The likelihood that the potential harm will occur
  • The imminence of the potential harm.

The determination of the ā€œdirect threatā€ must be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.Ā SeeĀ 29 C.F.R. Ā§1630.2(r). As noted in the EEOC Guidance, this means that the determination of a ā€œdirect threatā€ should not be based on ā€œirrational fearsā€ or ā€œsubjective perceptions.ā€

As stated in the EEOC Guidance, ā€œ[e]mployers should not assume that all disabilities increase the risk of influenza complications.ā€ Examples offered in the EEOC Guidance of disabilities with a presumably lesser risk of complications are those impacting vision or mobility. Yet, careful thought illustrates how even more visually ā€œhiddenā€ disabilities should not be grounds for irrational fears of adverse risk. For example, it would be a subjective assumption that all persons with cancer may be immunocompromised in the same way. In practice, the immunocompromised status of a cancer patient often varies based on the type of cancer or the status of treatment.

Avoid Oversharing Sensitive Medical Information

Thus, while we believe it would be improper for employers to use COVID-19 as a pretext to inquire as to the disabilities or medical conditions of asymptomatic employees, employers will no doubt argue that there is a potential ā€œgray areaā€ with inquiries about disabilities or medical conditions that the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control (the ā€œCDCā€) or other health authorities have determined place you at heightened risk for severe complications from COVID-19.

Ultimately, even in light of the EEOCā€™s suggestion on this issue, the answer to this question is not ā€œone size fits allā€ and will depend on individual facts and circumstances. We would caution against oversharing sensitive medical information, particularly when other options exist for employees, notably those in ā€œnon-essentialā€ positions, to either work remotely or take leave (please see other blog posts on these topics).

Are You an Employee Concerned about an Employment Law Violation?

The attorneys of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP are relentless advocates for workers who endure mistreatment by their employers. Our attorneys have decades of combined experience helping people seek fair and just compensation when theyā€™ve been taken advantage of at work.

Begin fighting for what you deserve by contacting Haeggquist & Eck, LLPĀ onlineĀ or callingĀ (619) 342-8000Ā to arrange a free case evaluation.

SHARE

COMMENTS & DISCUSSIONS

Related Posts

Federal Court Holds All Plaintiffs in Precedent-Setting Title IX Case Can Sue San Diego State University for RetaliationĀ Ā 

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry  ...
Read More
Title IX sex discrimination case HAE

Title IX Sex Discrimination Case Against SDSU Moves Forward Again: Court Holds All Women Athletes Can Sue For Damages, Future Discrimination Can Be BarredĀ 

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry.   ...
Read More

Sex Discrimination Case Against SDSU Moving Forward on All Counts: Equal Athletic Financial Aid, Retaliation, and Equal Treatment

SDSU Women Win Nationā€™s First Ruling that Female Student-Athletes Denied Equal Athletic Financial Aid Can Sue Their Schools for Damages ...
Read More
Translate Ā»