Two lawsuits the EEOC announced on September 29 put physical tests under scrutiny, one used on an employee returning from medical leave and one used on job applicants. The allegations are the agency’s, not a court’s finding.
What happened
In the first suit, filed in Colorado against an industrial equipment company, the EEOC alleges an employee was required to pass a fitness test involving repeated lifting and carrying of 100 pounds before returning from medical leave. The agency says the test did not reflect the tasks of her position as a painter, and that she had a knee condition.
In the second suit, filed in Arizona against an aircraft manufacturer, the EEOC alleges a pulmonary function test was used to screen out a class of applicants with disabilities, and that a mechanic with more than 15 years’ experience was refused hire after failing it. The agency says respirator use was not an essential function of the positions.
Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District, said: “Any physical test must accurately reflect the actual physical tasks required for the actual job position, including what tasks an employee could complete while using a reasonable accommodation.”
Why it matters
Both suits attack the standard, not the person. The EEOC’s theory is that a test can be a barrier before any accommodation conversation begins. That places responsibility on whoever writes and approves the test, which in many companies is HR, not the manager who applies it. It also runs alongside earlier cases we tracked, including disability suits that start at the offer stage and a hearing-based hiring bar.
Our read
This is our reading. A test in use for years tends to be treated as settled and is rarely reviewed against the job as it exists today. List every physical or medical screen your company uses, and beside each one write the essential task it predicts and the accommodation path for someone who does not pass. A screen with an empty second column has an open question attached.
