Chapter § 3-6 § 1630.6. Contractual or Other Arrangements

• Jurisdiction: United States

3-6 § 1630.6. Contractual or Other Arrangements

(a) In general. It is unlawful for a covered entity to participate in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting the covered entity's own qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this part.

(b) Contractual or other arrangement defined. The phrase contractual or other arrangement or relationship includes, but is not limited to, a relationship with an employment or referral agency; labor union, including collective bargaining agreements; an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity; or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.

(c) Application. This section applies to a covered entity, with respect to its own applicants or employees, whether the entity offered the contract or initiated the relationship, or whether the entity accepted the contract or acceded to the relationship. A covered entity is not liable for the actions of the other party or parties to the contract which only affects the other party's employees or applicants.

3-6:1 Commentary

3-6:1.1 Employers Cannot Avoid Liability by Merely Relying on Medical Advice

An employer cannot absolve itself of complying with the law by stating that it relied upon medical advice. The employer must still analyze its obligations, with input from a physician as a part, but only one part, of its ADA obligations. Texas courts have squarely addressed this issue.

• EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, 923 F. Supp. 965 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (employer offered bus driver position to applicant; she needed to pass a medical certification mandated by Department of Transportation; she is five feet, seven inches tall and weighs 345 pounds; doctor performs cursory examination, concludes that she "waddles" and cannot walk in a straight line; from this, he concludes that she would be unable to move swiftly in the event of an emergency, although he performs no agility tests, and company withdraws its offer; court holds that fact that employer relied upon medical advice does not absolve it of liability even if it relies upon the advice in good faith).
• Rodriguez v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co., 436 F.3d 468, 477-78 (5th Cir. 2006) (employer not immunized from liability because it relied upon advice from physician with whom it had contracted to give medical examinations to applicants).

Other courts adhere to the reasoning in Texas Bus Lines. While an employer...