Plaintiff Donald Baker sued defendant Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court granted summary judgment to Alliance, and Baker appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Factual Overview

Donald Baker, who has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003 following his service in the Iraq war, worked as a research technician at a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind site in Boulder, Colorado from 2009 to 2020. His job involved both office and field work, with some hazardous duties including training coworkers on safely operating and maintaining heavy industrial equipment.

In April 2019, Baker discovered that his immediate supervisor, Scott Wilde, had forged Baker’s initials on maintenance records, and he reported this to management. After this incident, Baker’s relationship with Wilde deteriorated significantly, leading to multiple personal and professional altercations. During this period, Baker sent several concerning emails to coworkers and management, including one sent at 4:07 a.m. on November 5, 2019, in which he complained about being unable to sleep, labeled Wilde “nothing but an imposter and a fraud,” and made references to veterans who had committed suicide.

This email prompted Alliance’s senior HR manager to consult with the company’s legal department, who advised putting Baker on leave pending a fitness-for-duty examination with an independent clinical psychologist. The psychologist, Dr. Evan Axelrod, determined that Baker was experiencing “significant psychological distress” and was not fit for duty. Dr. Axelrod recommended that Baker undergo a psychiatric evaluation and counseling before returning to work.

In Spring 2020, Baker and Alliance exchanged communications regarding his efforts to comply with the fitness-for-duty requirements. Baker claimed his own doctor found him fit for duty and that he had completed counseling, but Alliance insisted on formal documentation from a healthcare provider. Alliance eventually scheduled a return-to-work exam with Dr. Axelrod, but Baker refused and resigned, claiming constructive discharge.

Legal Analysis

ADA Discrimination Claims

The court analyzed Baker’s claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which required Baker to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) he was disabled under the ADA; (2) he was qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of his job; and (3) he suffered discrimination because of his disability.

The court found that Baker failed at the second step because he could not show he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job. The court concluded that being able to handle reasonable workplace stress and getting along with colleagues are essential functions of most jobs. Given that Baker failed to complete the steps recommended by Dr. Axelrod and provide documentation indicating he was fit for duty, he could not establish that he was qualified to perform his job’s essential functions.

Baker argued that the fitness-for-duty exam was unjustified because he didn’t pose a danger to the workplace, comparing his behavior to other employees who violated safety rules without being subjected to fitness-for-duty exams. The court rejected this argument, noting that the business-necessity test under the ADA is an objective one that looks for “significant evidence that could cause a reasonable person to inquire as to whether an employee is still capable of performing his job.”

The court determined that Alliance was justified in requesting the fitness-for-duty exam, as Baker was clearly struggling with stress and interpersonal conflicts at work, sending concerning emails, and by his own admission told Dr. Axelrod he “would not be fit for duty as long as Wilde remained at NREL.”

Baker also claimed the exam was unreliable because Alliance never provided Dr. Axelrod with a list of his job’s essential functions. The court rejected this argument as well, noting that Alliance had described Baker’s job to Dr. Axelrod, provided past performance evaluations, and relied on Baker to provide additional information during the evaluation.

ADA Retaliation Claim

For his retaliation claim, Baker needed to show that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Baker claimed Alliance retaliated against him for contacting the EEOC by scheduling a second examination with Dr. Axelrod.

The court found that the follow-up exam was justified given Baker’s failure to complete the steps required for his return to work. The court cited precedent stating that “an examination ordered for valid reasons can neither count as an adverse job action nor prove discrimination.”

The court also rejected Baker’s claim of constructive discharge, finding that he voluntarily chose to resign rather than attend the follow-up examination. The court emphasized that constructive discharge requires showing that a reasonable person would view the working conditions as intolerable and that the employee had “no other choice but to quit.” Since Baker had other choices available to him, his resignation did not constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Alliance on all of Baker’s claims.