Case_Study

Name: Abdullahi Osman Case Brief: Griffin v. Steeltek Facts: Plaintiff-Applicant Randy Griffin, a non-disabled individual, applied for a position as a grinder with Defendant-Applellee steeltek, Inc. Griffin was not hired for the position, allegedly because he did not have the two years of grinding experience required by steeltek. According to Griffin, he was never told that Steeltek required two years of grinding experience, and in fact was told at the time he applied that he was the best qualified applicant for the position. Issue: The legal issue that must be decided is whether improper medical questions are actionable under 12112(d)(2) if asked of a non-disabled applicant. The case requires to determine whether a non-disabled individual has a cause of action under the ADA. Rule: This case required to be determined whether a non-disabled has a cause of action under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Analysis: The district court held that “because [Griffin] has failed to allege either that he was disabled or perceived as disabled as defined under the ADA, he has not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Hence, Steeltek was entitled to summary judgment “as matter of law.” Because the district court ruled as a matter of law that Griffin had failed to establish a prima facie case because he was neither disabled nor perceived to be disabled, the court never reached the issue of whether Griffin was causally injured by being required to answer r the impermissible questions. Additionally, the court did not rule whether Steeltek’s proffered reason for not hiring Griffin-that he lacked two years of grinding experience-was pretexual. Conclusion: Griffin won the battle over the interpretation of the ADA, but he subsequently lost the war. Although Griffin could sue despite not being a disabled person, he had to show that he adverse employment action was based on the medical information obtained through the employer’s improper inquires.