Facts

Plaintiff James Scott filed a suit claiming that after his supervisor defendant Michael Chertoff became aware of plaintiff's physical ailments, defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct that violated plaintiff's rights.

Plaintiff claimed he was suspended and then terminated for refusing to provide medical information during physical examination.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff, a law enforcement officer of 13 years, contended that the suspension and termination were retaliation for his assertion of his ADA rights not to answer the medical history questions. Brought to trial as a violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that there were alternate, justifiable reasons for the suspension and termination, that plaintiff had an obligation to prove his medical readiness, and also failed to sign the release of medical records. Defendant argued that Nassar v. University of Texas imposed a 'but for' test that could not be shown by plaintiff.

Result

Jury verdict on liability for $1.1 million. In a bifurcated trial, jury only awarded pain and suffering. Summary judgment granted that medical history questions did violate American with Disabilities Act. Issue remained as to whether additional justifications (such as plaintiff's refusal to sign a release of medical information) would have permitted the adverse actions.

Deliberation

one day

Length

seven days