Trial News

The Eighth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment against an employee who alleged that her employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring a health screening regarding the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; failing to reasonably accommodate a disability that prevented her from receiving the vaccine; and retaliating after she was terminated for failing to be vaccinated. The court determined that the defendant’s requirements were consistent with the ADA because its employees worked directly with people who suffered from compromised immune systems and thus were vulnerable to communicable diseases and because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation. (Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2018).)

Janice Hustvet was an Independent Living Skills specialist for 15 years at the Courage Center, which provided education and support to clients with disabilities to help them live more independently. After the center merged with a rehabilitation institute owned by Allina Health System, it required all employees who had contact with its immune-compromised patients and clients to be vaccinated. Hustvet did not comply with Allina’s requirement to get an MMR vaccination, explaining that she previously had severe cases of mumps and measles and that she suffered from allergies and chemical sensitivities. Allina suggested that Hustvet be immunized for rubella only, but after learning that no such vaccination was available, she refused to be vaccinated at all. Allina then fired Hustvet for failing to comply with its vaccination policy.

Hustvet sued Allina for discrimination, unlawful inquiry, and retaliation under the ADA and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment; the district court granted the defendant’s and dismissed the plaintiff’s. Hustvet appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

The plaintiff’s first claim involved whether the defendant violated the ADA and MHRA when it required that she complete a health screening as a condition of employment. The lower court dismissed the claim as a matter of law. The Eighth Circuit dismissed as well, but for different reasons. Although the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of medical examinations and inquiries, the Eighth Circuit determined that the statute allows for those examinations and inquires in certain circumstances. Employers cannot conduct disability-related inquiries or medical examinations before offering someone a job, but they can do so after an offer has been made and if the examinations are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

To establish a violation, the plaintiff must show a tangible injury but does not have to have a disability. In Hustvet’s case, the district court concluded that she had not suffered an injury because she was terminated over her failure to get the rubella vaccine, not because of her failure to comply with the health screening. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that communications from the defendant showed that the plaintiff’s failure to complete the health screening was named as a factor in her termination. However, the court still affirmed summary judgment because the health screening was consistent with the ADA. The plaintiff was notified of the screening after the merger but before her employment with Allina began, even if her failure to comply was discovered later. Further, the screening was job-related and consistent with business necessity. To meet this standard, an employer must demonstrate that the screening is “job-related, the business necessity for the exam or inquiry is vital to the business, and the exam or inquiry is no broader than necessary.” Because the screening involved infectious diseases and employees worked directly with people who may be especially vulnerable to infectious diseases, it was within the ADA’s guidelines.

The Eighth Circuit next considered the plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Hustvet argued that she has a disability due to her allergies and chemical sensitivities, which arise from an immune system disorder, and that she has a seizure disorder. Her request not to receive a rubella immunization was an accommodation request under the ADA and MHRA. But the court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support that Hustvet suffered from a disability. It reasoned that her allergies and chemical sensitivities had not “substantially or materially limit[ed] her ability to perform major life activities” and that there was no record of her having sought medical treatment or emergency treatment related to those allergies and chemical sensitivities. The court further found that her seizure disorder did not qualify as a disability for a reasonable accommodation because she had not notified the defendant of it and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not include seizures as a reason for avoiding the MMR vaccine.

Finally, the court addressed the plaintiff’s retaliation claim. A retaliation claim under the ADA and MHRA is evaluated under a burden-shifting framework that requires a plaintiff to offer prima facie evidence of a statutorily protect activity, an adverse action by the employer, and a causal connection between the two. Then, an employer must rebut that evidence with a non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s alternate reason is merely pretext. The court determined that Hustvet could not show that the defendant’s non-retaliatory reason for her termination was pretextual—that it failed to follow established policies or treated similarly situated employees differently. Rather, she was terminated after she failed to comply with a reasonable policy to protect the clients she worked with.