Noonan v. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission

**Noonan v. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission** This case involved a public employee who filed complaints against the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability. The dispute centered on a medical evaluation that was used to make decisions about the employee's work status and benefits. The court found a significant problem with how the medical evaluation was conducted. The medical panel physician used the wrong legal standard when assessing the employee's condition. Instead of using the required "reasonable probability of substantial harm" test, the doctor applied a stricter "greater than average risk" standard. The court ruled that both sides had valid arguments on some issues, so it denied their requests to end the case early through summary judgment. The court sent the case back to PERAC and ordered a new medical evaluation using the correct legal standard. **What this means for workers:** If you're a public employee dealing with disability-related workplace issues, medical evaluations must follow specific legal standards. Employers can't use overly strict criteria that aren't required by law. If you believe an improper standard was used in your medical evaluation, you may have grounds to challenge it and request a proper reassessment.