Overview: Before making a job offer, an employer is prohibited from requiring a prospective employee to undergo a medical exam. After making a job offer, medical tests may be conducted so long as they are performed on all applicants in a particular job category and do not discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
However, not all examinations are considered equal under the ADA. For instance, physical fitness tests are not considered medical exams so long as they relate to an essential job function and do not measure physiological or biological responses. Psychological tests designed to measure tastes and habits also do not qualify as medical tests. As a result, these tests may be performed prior to making a job offer.
If an employer does withdraw a job offer because of the results of a medical exam, this withdrawal must be job related and consistent with business necessity. It also is important that employers keep all medical information obtained from an examination confidential, including information that an applicant discloses voluntarily.
Trends: Both the federal government and the states have taken steps to restrict the use of genetic testing in recent years. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits using genetic information in employment decisions, and restricts the acquisition and disclosure of such information. Many states have followed suit.
While a few limited exceptions do apply, employers should steer clear of conducting genetic testing or seeking an applicant's family medical history.
Author: David B. Weisenfeld, JD, Legal Editor
In-depth review of the spectrum of New York employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to preemployment screening and testing.
In-depth review of the spectrum of New Hampshire employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to preemployment screening and testing.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Washington employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to preemployment screening and testing.
On May 15, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its questions and answers series regarding workplace rights and the prevention of discrimination against individuals with specific disabilities.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Minnesota employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to preemployment screening and testing.
A district court in Pennsylvania held that an employer may require probationary employees in safety sensitive positions to undergo random alcohol testing without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if it can show that there is a clear business justification and medical necessity. In doing so, the court dismissed a claim filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an employee who was terminated when she obtained a false positive test result due to her diabetes medication. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Steel, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22748 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
XpertHR's Transportation Resource Center for HR: Recruiting and Hiring helps transportation industry employers handle their most vexing employment issues by bringing relevant resources together in one place for easy access.
Employers in the 6th Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) should carefully consider the advice and opinions of third parties on whether an applicant can perform a job before withdrawing a conditional job offer, as a new ruling shows.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Massachusetts employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to preemployment screening and testing.
HR guidance on when medical examinations of prospective employees may be conducted.