In a victory for University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), a Pennsylvania federal court rejected certification of a proposed class finding that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) claims were too individualized for class treatment. After years of procedural maneuvers, in Chedwick v. UPMC, the court ruled that, because the plaintiff was proceeding on a claim of unlawful use of medical information, the individualized nature of each putative class member’s claim was not susceptible to class treatment.

Chedwick, a former employee of UPMC, sought to represent a class of employees who claimed they were denied opportunities to obtain alternative positions within UPMC because of UPMC’s alleged improper use of medical examinations and inquiries under the ADA. Specifically, Chedwick asserted that UPMC required employees to apply for positions when they returned from medical leave and used the employees’ medical information to deny them those positions.

Acknowledging that the Third Circuit’s decision in Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc. left the door open for class treatment of ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims where “the class definition contained sufficient ‘unifying or limiting criteria’ to make individualized inquiries unnecessary,” the court went on to explain that Chedwick’s class definition did not fit this exception. Since the class claims were premised on the theory that UPMC improperly used medical information, and not just on the medical examination requirement, the court found that the claims only accrued if the information was actually used to discriminate against a qualified individual.

Examining the propriety of Rule 23 class certification under this theory, the court concluded that the issues were too individualized to permit certification. Each putative class member would need to establish a qualifying disability, the existence of a vacant position, the member’s own qualifications for the position, and that the use of the medical information caused them to be denied the position. These individualized facts made it impossible to prove that UPMC acted or refused to act on grounds that applied generally to the class or that questions of law or fact common to the class predominated over questions affecting only individual members.

Employers facing litigation involving ADA claims should pay careful attention to the distinction between claims of improper “use” of medical information and claims for unlawful medical examinations or inquiries. The distinction could very well be the difference between defending against a class action and defending against a single plaintiff.

Photo credit: MBPhoto, Inc.