the inquiry into the protected information would reveal that the employee was unable to perform, work related functions or was a danger to the health and safety of the workplace”). Some disability-related inquiries aimed at curbing sick leave abuse may fall within the business necessity exception. The problem here is that DOCS has not offered sufficient evidence to prove either this business necessity or any other. We also note that what constitutes a business necessity will undoubtedly vary in different workplaces. The needs of correctional facilities for secure and adequate staffing are particularly strong, and in other contexts, courts have recognized the special circumstances of such facilities. See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 n. 29, 99
holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect recognizing that generally federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to man age a volatile environment