| |
HRD
> Policy Development > Topical
ADA Archive >
Topical
ADA Archive
Substance
Abuse
- Avery v. Omaha Public Power District, (DC Neb), 7
AD Cases 1654, 2/4/1998
Summary: Alcoholic employee's admitted violation of
return-to-work agreement that forbade him to consume alcohol warranted
employer's revocation of his nuclear power operator's license
in view of safety-sensitive nature of his job and his clear breach
of promise. Employee's argument that he signed agreement under
duress, as he otherwise would not have been permitted to continue
his employment, is without merit since such agreements by definition
are tied to continued employment.
- Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
(CA 2), 8 AD Cases 847, 9/11/98
Summary: Requiring recovering substance abusers to
submit to drug testing more frequently than other employees does
not violate ADA, which specifies that drug test should not be
considered medical examination under Section 104(d)(1) of the
Act and allows employers to exempt non-abusers from drug testing
entirely.
Employer that administers random drug tests to recovering substance
abusers was not required to accommodate employee's neurogenic
bladder condition, which makes it difficult for him to urinate
on command, by extending time allowed for him to urinate, and
it did not violate ADA in discharging him for failure to complete
drug test, since neither text nor legislative history of ADA suggests
that employer must accommodate impairment that is not "disability''
under ADA, and there is no evidence that employee's inability
to produce urine sample was related to his status as recovering
substance abuser.
- Dauen v. Bd. Of Fire and Police Comrs., (Ill
AppCt), 7 AD Cases 1392, 9/22/1995
Summary: City board of police and fire commissioners was entitled
to find that firefighter's possession of cocaine, not his addiction,
was basis for his termination following police search of his home.
There was no evidence that the fire chief, who learned about the
search and sought the employee's dismissal for possession of cocaine
in violation of state law and departmental rules, knew that he
was addicted to drugs or that he was seeking treatment.
- Herman v. City of Allentown, (DC EPa), 7 AD Cases
1326, 11/21/1997
Summary: City that failed to rehire firefighter who had been discharged
after being arrested for altering a prescription for a pain killer
discriminated against him on the basis of the erroneous belief
that he was engaging in illegal use of drugs. City contended that
it acted on the basis of his drug use, which would disqualify
him from being "qualified individual with a disability,''
but the conduct being challenged is not his discharge but the
city's failure to rehire him. Employee was no longer engaging
in illegal use of drugs when city refused to rehire him. Employee
testified that he stopped using drugs on the day that he was arrested,
and drug program director and drug addiction specialist both stated
that when they examined him he was no longer illegally using drugs.
- Maddox
v. Univ. of Tennessee, (CA 6), 4
AD Cases 1253, 8/21/1995
Summary: Court of Appeals held that lower court correctly distinguished
between discharge for misconduct and discharge because of disability
of alcoholism in upholding the discharge of an assistant university
football coach for having been arrested for drunk driving. Employee
contended that in essence he was discharged because of his disability
because it was alcoholism that caused the incident that led to
discharge. However, such a position would force employers to accommodate
all behavior of alcoholics that could in any way be related to
the alcoholic's use of intoxicating beverages, including behavior
that would be intolerable if engaged in by sober employee or by
intoxicated but non-alcoholic employee.
Employers must be permitted to take appropriate action where there
is egregious or criminal conduct regardless of whether the employee
is disabled. It strains logic to conclude that an individual who
becomes intoxicated and sexually assaults a co-worker could be
protected under the ADA merely because he has been diagnosed as
an alcoholic and claims that his conduct was caused by his disability.
- Mararri
v. WCI Steel Inc., (CA 6), 7 AD Cases
978, 12/21/1997
Summary: Section 104(a) of the ADA, which excludes current users
of illegal drugs from protection of the ADA, does not apply to
alcoholics, since its plain language does not exclude alcoholics
from ADA coverage. Alcohol is not a "drug'' within the meaning
of the ADA, and the ADA treats drug addiction and alcoholism differently.
- Randall v. Port of Portland, (DC Ore), 8 AD
Cases 1404, 10/22/1998
Summary: Employer did not violate ADA when it discharged alcoholic
employee for losing his driver's license following his conviction
for driving while intoxicated, where he has failed to produce
any evidence that his discharge was precipitated by his alcoholism,
as opposed to legal consequences of his decision to drive while
intoxicated, and he admitted that employer terminated him because
"he could not drive.''
- Salley v. Circuit City Stores, (CA 3), 8 AD
Cases 1407, 11/19/1998
Summary: Former store manager who had revealed his history of
drug addiction to supervisor a few years before his relapse into
addiction was lawfully discharged for violations of management
policies involving drug use. Employer took no action on his drug-use
revelations, its loss prevention department acted to investigate
him only when it discovered evidence that his drug use was no
longer just past problem, other employees were aware of his drug
use, he discussed drugs at workplace, he reported to work under
influence of drugs, he was late because of drug use and sometimes
left work to use drugs, he failed to report subordinate drug use
and instead engaged in drug use with subordinate. Store legitimately
feared that such acts would be harmful to its business.
|
