discovered his DMV-issued handicap parking permit. And “[t]o [his] knowledge, others were not subjected to the same tests.” Am. Compl. at 2. Assuming these facts to be true, it is at least plausible to infer that the purpose of the medical examinations was to determine “whether [Blackwell] is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of [his] disability.” Thus, if none of section 12112(d)’s exceptions apply, then the medical examination qualifies as an adverse action under the ADA. One exception to the ADA’s prohibition on disability-related medical inquiries, however, is that employers “may make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.” § 12112(d)(4)(B); see, e.g., Doe v. U.S. Postal Serv., 317 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Again, Blackwell’s complaint alleges that his
holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding that an employers inquiry into the reason for an employees work absences was a permissible jobrelated inquiry under the ada holding that an inquiry into trip destination is permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances holding that the existence of probable cause vitiated the need for an inquiry into an underlying motive for the arrest