In a case of first impression, on April 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an important decision in Nawara v. Cook County Municipality (Case Nos. 22-1393, 22-1430, 22-2395 & 22-2451), holding that an employee can recover back pay when an employer violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring an unlawful fitness-for-duty exam, even if the employee does not establish he had a disability or his employer perceived him as having a disability.

John Nawara, a former Correctional Officer at the Cook County Jail, experienced multiple conflicts with colleagues, including “heated altercations” with his superior officer and an HR manager. This prompted the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to place Nawara on paid leave and mandate a fitness-for-duty examination before he could return to work. Initially resistant, Nawara eventually complied with the request after his paid leave ended and he began unpaid leave, but not before filing a lawsuit. Nawara alleged that the examination and inquiry into his mental health status violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4) of the ADA, entitling him to a restoration of his seniority, and equitable relief in the form of back pay and lost pension benefits (collectively, “back pay”).

Section 12112(d)(4) of the ADA restricts an employer from requiring “a medical examination and [making] inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The EEOC has explained that, “[g]enerally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination of an employee may be ‘job-related and consistent with business necessity’ when an employer ‘has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that: (1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a direct threatdue to a medical condition.’” EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries & Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA, No. 915.002 (7-27-2000).

At trial, the jury found that Cook County and Sheriff Dart did not make that showing, meaning the fitness-for-duty exam was unlawful. But the jury awarded Nawara no damages. Nawara filed a post-trial motion seeking restoration of his seniority and back pay. The district court granted Nawara’s request for restoration of his seniority but denied the request for back pay, reasoning that a violation of Section 12112(d)(4) did not support an award of back pay.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of back pay.

In holding that back pay is recoverable for a violation of Section 12112(d)(4) even when an employee does not have a disability or the employer does not perceive him as having a disability, the Seventh Circuit looked to the interplay of the ADA’s statutory text and its relationship to Title VII’s remedial structure. The court explained: “Congress can define ‘discrimination ... on the basis of disability’ however it likes. And here, Congress effectuated the broad remedial purpose of the ADA by including medical examinations and inquiries into an employee’s disability status within the definition of ‘discrimination ... on the basis of disability.’” Because the ADA permits an award of back pay when an employer “discriminat[es] ... on the basis of disability,” back pay is thus available for a violation of Section 12112(d)(4) as well.

The Nawara decision is important because, unlike typical ADA claims that require a plaintiff to establish (as part of a prima facie case) that he had a disability or was perceived as having a disability, a claim under Section 12112(d)(4) has no such requirement but can still expose an employer to the same damages. Accordingly, employers should ensure that any fitness-for-duty examinations or medical inquiries are strictly job-related and consistent with business necessity—or beware of potential damages now available under Nawara.

If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this article, please contact James P. Looby at jlooby@vedderprice.com, Fernanda Contreras at fcontreras@vedderprice.com, or any other Vedder Price attorney with whom you have worked.