Search form

Employees' ADA Claims on Prescription-Drug-Use Dismissals Rejected by Federal Court

By Scott A. Carroll, Mark A. de Bernardo and Matthew F. Nieman
  • December 1, 2010


Ruling that only persons with disabilities can pursue claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s provisions on qualification tests and standards (42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(6)), the federal appeal court in Cincinnati upheld an employer’s dismissal of seven employees for testing positive for prescription-drug use.  Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 09-6351 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010).  Notwithstanding that some provisions of the ADA generally has been interpreted to cover non-disabled individuals who are discriminated against (e.g., a “perception” of disability), the Court said it based its conclusion on a straightforward reading of the statute and noted that its interpretation was consistent with that of the Fifth Circuit’s (citing Fuzy v. S&B Engineers & Constructors Ltd., 332 F.3d 301, 14 AD Cases 676 (5th Cir. 2003)).  (The Court had previously ruled in another case that the 2008 amendments to the ADA did not apply retroactively.  Thus, they were inapplicable in this case.) The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

The Facts of the Case

The Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant of Dura Automotive Systems, an auto-parts manufacturer, had a high accident rate (compared to similar manufacturing plants).  The plant implemented a 12-panel drug-test program in which banned substances included prescription drugs known to cause impairment and, thus, create safety risks (e.g., Xanax, Lortab, and Oxycodone). Seven employees tested positive for legal substances banned by the program.

All employees who tested positive for banned prescription drugs are given the option of switching to other drugs not containing the banned substances.  After the seven employees tested positive again for the banned substances, they were terminated.

The employees sued, claiming the drug-testing program violated the ADA.  The company argued the plaintiffs had no standing to sue under the statute.  The trial court disagreed and held the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the ADA’s provisions on qualification tests and standards (42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(6)).

Plain Text of Statute

The Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court and ordered dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the ADA because “the plain text of subsection (b)(6) only covers individuals with disabilities.”  It ruled, “A straightforward reading of this statute compels the conclusion that only a ‘qualified individual with a disability’ is protected from the prohibited form of discrimination described in subsection (b)(6) – the use of qualification standards and other tests that tend to screen out disabled individuals.”

Job-relatedness and Business Necessity Exceptions

Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr., on behalf of the Court, wrote, “[W]e endeavor to read statutes and regulations with an eye to their straightforward and common sense meanings. When we can discern an unambiguous and plain meaning from the language of a statute, our task is at an end.”  Thus, the Court did not address whether Dura’s prescription-drug-testing and terminations fell within the exception in the ADA’s non-discrimination standards of “job-relatedness” and “consistent with business necessity.”

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other workplace laws.


©2010 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 19, 2015

EEOC Proposed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Rule Permits Incentives in Wellness Programs for Spouse Health Information

November 19, 2015

In a shift, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a proposed rule clarifying that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) does not prohibit employers from offering limited incentives to employees when their covered spouses provide information about their current and past health status in a... Read More

November 18, 2015

Pacific Northwest Employer Workplace News - November 2015

November 18, 2015

Oregon Sick Leave: Applicability of Requirements to Employees Occasionally Working in State Unclear Beginning January 1, 2016, Oregon will join a growing number of cities and states mandating that employers provide certain classes of employees with sick leave benefits. For the specific requirements imposed by the new legislation,... Read More

November 12, 2015

Elizabeth, New Jersey, Ordinance Requires Private Sector Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave

November 12, 2015

Elizabeth, New Jersey, joins a growing number of municipalities in the Garden State to enact a City Ordinance mandating that all private employers in the city provide their employees with paid sick time. Ordinance No. 4617 will take effect on March 2, 2016, or at the expiration of current collective bargaining agreements for employees... Read More