Allan Peden, a Detroit police officer, suffered a heart attack and underwent successful heart surgery. His physician approved his return to work on indefinite restricted duty conditions, and for ten years he continued working in clerical positions with the police department’s Crime Analysis Unit (CAU).

The Detroit Police Department decided to update the written job description for police positions based on a list of “24 Essential Job Functions of a Law Enforcement Officer” developed by the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council. The list included such tasks as pursuing suspects in foot chases, engaging in vehicle pursuits, effecting forcible arrests, overcoming violent resistance, and qualifying with a firearm. The Police Department described the duties of police officers as including patrolling an assigned post, enforcing laws, apprehending violators of the law, transporting sick and injured people to hospitals, and serving warrants.

The Police Department physicians reviewed Peden’s medical records and determined that he was unable to perform the required tasks on the job description.

The Police Department then placed Peden on involuntary disability retirement. The Department claimed that he was incapable of performing the essential functions of a police officer position, but Peden argued that the job description did not accurately reflect the nature of his previous position. Will the court rule for Peden or the Police Department? Why? See Peden v. City of Detroit [470 Mich. 195, 680 N.W.2d 857 (Mich.

2004)].