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

August 26, 2016

New Illinois Employee Sick Leave Act Mandates Greater Flexibility on Use of Leave Benefits

August 26, 2016

The Illinois Employee Sick Leave Act (Public Act 99-0841) requires Illinois employers who provide personal sick leave benefits to their employees to allow employees to take such leave for absences due to the illness, injury, or medical appointment of the employee’s child, spouse, sibling, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law,... Read More

August 11, 2016

Illinois Law Mandates Unpaid Child Bereavement Leave

August 11, 2016

Illinois employers with at least 50 employees must provide employees who suffered the loss of a child with up to two weeks (10 work days) of unpaid leave under the new Child Bereavement Leave Act. The new law took effect immediately upon Governor Bruce Rauner’s signature on July 29, 2016. Covered Employees and Employers... Read More

June 27, 2016

Chicago City Council Passes Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

June 27, 2016

Effective July 1, 2017, an amendment to the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (2-25-050) requires employers in the City of Chicago to provide eligible employees up to 40 hours of paid sick leave in each 12-month period of their employment. The Chicago City Council passed the amendment on June 22, 2016. Paid Sick Leave Requirements Who... Read More