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

May 27, 2016

Minneapolis Becomes First City in Minnesota to Require Paid Sick Leave

May 27, 2016

Minneapolis, Minnesota, has joined the growing list of U.S. cities mandating paid sick leave for employees working in the city. On May 27, 2016, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed a citywide sick leave ordinance, the Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time Ordinance (“Ordinance”), requiring employers with at least six... Read More

May 17, 2016

What Employers Need to Know About the New York City Pregnancy Accommodation Enforcement Guidance

May 17, 2016

The New York City Commission on Human Rights has released enforcement guidance on the New York City Pregnant Workers Fairness Act identifying five categories of potential violations and emphasizing the need to engage in cooperative dialogue to reach accommodation. The Act, passed in 2013 and codified in the New York City Human Rights Law... Read More

May 2, 2016

OSHA, NIOSH Release Joint Guidance on Zika Virus Prevention

May 2, 2016

Federal government agencies have released interim guidance to provide employers and workers information and advice on preventing occupational exposure to the Zika virus. The focus of the seven-page guidance, released April 22 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and... Read More