Plaintiff Michael Matanic was offered a process engineer position with

Plaintiff Michael Matanic was offered a process engineer position with American Tool & Mold, Inc. (ATM). The offer for the position required the plaintiff to complete medical testing to determine his ability to perform the responsibilities of the position. ATM also required that all prospective employees be able to lift 35 pounds. During the medical testing for employment, prospective employees had to complete a "Back History" form, which specifically inquires whether an employee's back injury was a workers' compensation injury. The plaintiff's completed "Back History" form revealed that he had suffered an injury to his spine, after which he had had multiple surgeries. After ATM was made aware of this past injury, they did not require completion of the back screen and did not assess whether he could lift 35 pounds. Those who administered the medical testing then provided the plaintiff with a statement stating that he was "recommended not fit for employment/work at this time because: More medical information needed, specifically, old records of back surgery. . . ." The plaintiff then provided ATM with the appropriate medical records and was further examined by a physician who provided the plaintiff with a Worker Status Report. This report was provided to ATM. ATM still concluded that the plaintiff had failed to provide "appropriate medical documentation from the surgical team that performed the procedure . . . stating that he has no permanent restriction in order to proceed with the clearance for the position with ATM." The plaintiff was then terminated from his conditional employment. The plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that ATM had violated the ADA. The EEOC motioned for summary judgment. How do you think the court ruled? Why? EEOC v. Am. Tool & Mold, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (2014).