Court Rules in Favor of Chicago Fire Applicant Denied Employment Due to Mental Health History

A federal district court judge has ruled the City of Chicago violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) when it withdrew an offer of employment to a firefighter/EMT based on his mental health history.

Nicholas Sintos applied to join the Chicago Fire Department in 2014. After clearing initial hurdles—including a written exam, background investigation, and physical test—he was given a conditional job offer in 2018, pending medical clearance.

Following an initial medical screening that disclosed a history of obesity, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, CFD’s medical director, Dr. William Wong, required Sintos to undergo a psychological suitability screening due to his mental health history. That screening, conducted by a forensic psychologist, Dr. Diana Goldstein, was not administered to all applicants—only to those with psychiatric histories. Sintos was rated “unacceptable,” and Dr. Wong denied medical clearance based on that rating. As a result, the City withdrew the job offer and removed Sintos from the eligibility list.

Sintos sued, alleging the psychological screening was an unlawful medical exam and that the City discriminated against him because of his disability. The city argued he could not meet the essential functions of the job, and he posed a direct threat to the safety and health of other personnel.

Sintos countered that the psychological screening was not proof he was unable to meet the essential functions of the job, an argument the court agreed with. Quoting from the decision:

• The parties agree that medical examinations can include follow-up evaluations when justified and that Dr. Wong could seek information about Sintos’ mental health.
• The parties also agree that “additional follow up must assess whether the applicant’s medical condition will impair their ability to perform the essential functions of the job or pose a direct threat.”
• But the parties disagree as to whether Dr. Goldstein’s suitability screening meets this standard.
• Dr. Wong testified that he understood Dr. Goldstein to perform “forensic evaluations using her knowledge, training, and experience in evaluating public safety personnel.”
• Dr. Goldstein, on the other hand, testified that the suitability screening was not a fitness-for-duty determination and should not be used to predict how well someone could safely and effectively perform a job.
• She instead described the suitability screenings of having the purpose of “assessing risk of a poor outcome in firefighting/paramedicine careers.”
• The City agreed that the suitability screening “does not, and did not in Sintos’s case, and cannot be used to evaluate whether a person can complete any job function of a CFD firefighter/EMT.”
• Nor did the suitability screening address whether an individual posed a direct threat, instead merely comparing whether the individual would have a poor career outcome, such as termination, poor performance evaluations, absenteeism, discipline, complaints, or disability claims.
• Given Dr. Goldstein’s unequivocal testimony on the matter, and the City’s acknowledgment that the suitability screening did not amount to a fitness-for-duty examination, no reasonable juror could find that the City did not violate § 12112(d)(3) [of the ADA] by requiring certain individuals to undergo Dr. Goldstein’s suitability screening. Therefore, the Court enters judgment for Sintos as to liability on his § 12112(d)(3) claim.

The court rejected the city’s direct threat, business necessity, and failure to mitigate defenses. Here is a summary of what the court said:

• Direct Threat Defense Rejected: The City argued Sintos posed a direct threat to others, but the court found no objective or individualized assessment supported that claim. CFD admitted Sintos’ risk of sudden incapacitation was the same as other men his age and that he posed no significant safety threat.
• Business Necessity Defense Fails: The City could not show that the screening was job-related or consistent with business necessity, especially since the psychologist herself stated it was a general risk assessment tool—not a fitness-for-duty evaluation.
• Failure to Mitigate: The court found the City failed to show that comparable firefighter positions were available for Sintos to apply to after his offer was rescinded.

Here is a copy of the decision.