Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Fla.: Fire department’s fitness-for-duty examination may have violated the ADA, (Apr 30, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The firefighter avoided dismissal of his ADA discrimination and retaliation claims but failed to adequately allege violations under GINA and Title VII.

Of the eight counts asserted by a former firefighter against the City of South Pasadena, Florida, stemming from his termination, just three survived the city’s motion to dismiss, held a federal district court in Tampa. The firefighter/paramedic, who was fired after voicing objections to what he considered to be an unlawfully intrusive annual physical examination, brought discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and Title VII, as well as one claim alleging an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment and another asserting a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violation. The court held that, on the face of the amended complaint, only the ADA claims and the Fourth Amendment claim could proceed, though it expressed skepticism as to how these claims would fare at the summary judgment stage (Griffin v. City of South Pasadena, No. 8:25-cv-02787-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2026))

One year after the firefighter was hired in 2018, the city and the local firefighters union (Local 747) finalized a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) under which all South Pasadena Fire Department (SPFD) employees agreed to undergo annual fitness-for-duty physical examinations. Throughout his employment, and particularly in August 2022, the firefighter vocalized objections to what he considered the “intrusive nature” of the examination, which included “tuberculin injection, ultrasonic imaging of the visceral organs and genitalia/reproductive organs, digital rectal examination, and portions of [a] medical questionnaire.”

Interactions lead to discipline. On August 2, 2022, the firefighter reported to the Life Scan Wellness Center (Life Scan) for his mandatory annual examination but was asked to reschedule when he complained to the staff about the exam’s intrusiveness. He returned 10 days later and completed the examination. Meanwhile, on August 5, the Fire Chief provided the firefighter with a Notice of Formal Investigation to be held on August 11, alleging multiple violations stemming from the August 2 incident.

On August 17, the Fire Chief issued the firefighter a Notice of Discipline asserting a failure to complete the annual physical in an efficient manner, disrespectful and unprofessional interaction with Life Scan staff, and violations of Employee Handbook, resulting in a 24-hour suspension without pay. The firefighter’s August 24 appeal to the Fire Commissioner was denied.

Second investigation and termination. On August 26, the city opened a second formal investigation, this time focusing on the firefighter’s actions during his second visit to Life Scan. A hearing was held on August 29, at which the firefighter testified and answered questions regarding what had occurred. On September 7, the Fire Chief provided the firefighter with a Notice of Discipline and accompanying memorandum regarding his conduct and work performance. Among other things, the memorandum asserted that the firefighter’s behavior “did not meet city standards, was insubordinate and significantly undermined public trust.” Following the Fire Chief’s recommendation, the city terminated the firefighter’s employment on September 13. That same day, the firefighter appealed his termination to the Fire Commissioner, but the appeal was denied.

After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, the firefighter filed suit, bringing nine counts against the city and Local 747. After the court’s dismissal of the first complaint, the firefighter filed an amended complaint against the city only, in which he alleged ADA, GINA, and Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, a Fourth Amendment unlawful search violation, and a Fourteenth Amendment violation of procedural due process. The city moved to dismiss all claims.

ADA claims. The court concluded that the ADA discrimination claim could proceed, as the firefighter sufficiently alleged that portions of the mandatory physical evaluation constituted impermissible medical inquires as to whether an SPFD employee was “an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). The court, however, hinted that binding caselaw suggested that this clam would not survive summary judgment under the business-necessity affirmative defense.

The firefighter also adequately stated all the elements in support of a retaliation claim under the ADA. In his amended complaint, the firefighter specified what objections he made with regard to the physical exam, to whom he objected, and when. The fact that the firefighter’s termination occurred less than two months after he met with his supervisors to discuss his objections met the causation requirement of this claim based on temporal proximity.

GINA claims. GINA makes it unlawful “for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee,” except in certain circumstances. 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1(b). The statute somewhat narrowly defines “genetic information” to include only “genetic tests” and “the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4)(A). The firefighter’s bare allegation that the medical questionnaire unnecessarily inquired about the “health status” of his family members, though, was nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the cause of action for GINA discrimination. Thus, his lack of detail about which portions of the questionnaire allegedly violated GINA precluded his discrimination and retaliation claims under this statute from surviving the city’s motion.

Title VII claims. The firefighter premised his sex discrimination claim under Title VII on the allegation that the city allowed some medical evaluations to be optional for females but mandatory for males, and his retaliation claim on his objections to this practice. Fatal for both of these claims, however, was the fact that the firefighter did not identify a similarly-situated female who was treated more favorably. Indeed, he could not possibly make this showing because the SPFD did not employ any female firefighters during the relevant period.

Fourth Amendment claim. The firefighter alleged that the medical examination constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. An exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists for searches that serve special government needs. The Eleventh Circuit has held that such special needs exist where government employees are engaged in safety-sensitive tasks, and has suggested that the special needs exception should be extended to firefighters. See Friedenberg v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty., 911 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2018); Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps. Council 79 v. Scott, 717 F.3d 851 (11th Cir. 2013).

Such claims, however, require a court to conduct a fact-intensive balancing test to examine the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties in order to determine the reasonableness of the search. Here, this type of inquiry could not be conducted at the motion-to-dismiss stage, where the factual record was almost barren. Whether the firefighter consented to the annual fitness-for-duty examination as a member of Local 747, which negotiated the CBA on behalf of its members, was not dispositive. Rather, this was a factor that the court would weigh if it were to conduct the balancing test later in the proceedings.

Fourteenth Amendment claim. The firefighter’s procedural due process claim was subject to dismissal because, based on the factual allegations contained in the amended complaint, he was afforded sufficient process for the adverse employment action that led to his termination. The Fire Chief provided him with a Notice of Formal Investigation informing the firefighter of his alleged violations, the firefighter participated in the formal investigation, the Fire Chief issued a Notice of Discipline with a memorandum explaining his reasons for the termination decision, and the firefighter appealed, at which time he was permitted to provide objections, case law, and scholarly articles. The firefighter had the opportunity to pursue a claim in state court to assert that he was subjected to some procedural defect, but the amended complaint was silent as to whether he chose to take this route.

Leave to amend. The court denied the firefighter’s request for leave to file an additional amended complaint in order to cure the defects in the dismissed claims, finding such an attempt to be futile.

The case is No. 8:25-cv-02787-WFJ-CPT.

Judge: Jung, W.

Attorneys: Andrew James Salzman (Unice Salzman Jensen) for Nathaniel Griffin. Brian Koji (Allen, Norton & Blue) for City of South Pasadena, Florida. Brian J. Petruska (Mooney Green Saindon Murphy & Welch) for The St. Petersburg International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 747.

Companies: City of South Pasadena, Florida; The St. Petersburg International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 747

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IndividualRights Privacy FloridaNews