Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
593 F.3d 1206 (2010)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
John Harrison (plaintiff) began working as a temporary employee at Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc. (BEHI) (defendant), in November 2005. Harrison’s supervisor, Don Anthony, encouraged Harrison to apply for a permanent position at BEHI. On May 19, 2006, Harrison submitted an application and took a routine preemployment drug test. Harrison tested positive for barbiturates. Anthony learned of the positive testing and questioned Harrison about the results. Harrison informed Anthony that he had a prescription for the barbiturates. Anthony had Harrison provide information regarding the prescription to a medical-review officer (MRO) over the phone while Anthony remained in the room. Harrison disclosed to the MRO that he took barbiturates to control his epilepsy. Anthony subsequently instructed BEHI’s human-resources department not to offer Harrison the job. On May 3, 2007, Harrison sued BEHI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, claiming that BEHI had made a preemployment medical inquiry prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The district court granted BEHI summary judgment, based in part on the ground that BEHI was entitled to ask follow-up questions after Harrison’s positive drug test to determine whether Harrison had a legitimate reason to take barbiturates. Harrison appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Siler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.