Inpatient treatment for alcoholism enough to prove disability to court
Business Management Daily
Workers alleging disability discrimination generally have to show that they have a condition that substantially limits a major life function. But they don’t necessarily have to drag a doctor into court. They can prove a condition such as alcoholism by showing that they underwent inpatient treatment and suffered withdrawal symptoms while there.
Recent case: When Julie was arrested for public intoxication, she immediately entered an inpatient alcohol treatment program. Her employer fired her for absenteeism during treatment.
She sued, alleging both FMLA and ADA violations. She told the court she couldn’t call in during the first seven days in treatment because she was not allowed outside contact.
She went on to describe going through detox and having withdrawal symptoms. She explained that before her arrest, she frequently drank a half-gallon of alcohol at night.
When a jury sided with Julie, her employer appealed. It argued that Julie had never presented medical evidence that she had been diagnosed with alcoholism and therefore hadn’t proven either that she was disabled or had a serious health condition under the ADA or the FMLA.
The court disagreed. It said the jury was free to conclude from her description of her drinking habits and her hospitalization that she had been an alcoholic and that the condition substantially limited major life functions like taking care of herself. (Diaz v. Saucon Valley Manor, et al., No. 13-4340, 3rd Cir., 2014)
ADA obligations for employers: the interactive process
HR.BLR.com
We have cautioned many times that employers must engage in the interactive process when there is a situation involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and an employee's job duties. A recent case from the federal trial court in Jackson, Mississippi highlights some of the difficulties employers face.
JD Supra
Medical Marijuana Use and the ADA or State Discrimination Laws
It is important to note that these state medical marijuana laws do not change the fact that the use and possession of marijuana continues to be unlawful under federal law.[3] This fact has been critical in several court cases challenging adverse actions based on marijuana use considered legal under state law. For instance, the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") does not protect individuals who claim discrimination because of medical marijuana use. The ADA excludes from coverage disabilities based on "illegal drug use." The determination of "illegality" under the ADA is based on federal, not state, law. Additionally, several states, such as California and Colorado, have laws protecting employees from adverse action taken as a result of participation in "lawful off-duty activities." So far, the courts have unanimously held that the "lawful off-duty activity" must be lawful under both federal and state law and that medical marijuana use is, therefore, not protected activity.
Although the use of medical marijuana is not protected under the ADA, the underlying condition for which the employee is using medical marijuana may be considered a disability requiring accommodation under the ADA or state discrimination laws. Thus, once the employer becomes aware of an employee's status as a registered patient, the employer may have an obligation to discuss reasonable accommodations for the underlying disability prior to taking adverse action. Additionally, state discrimination laws that do not track the language of the ADA regarding illegal drug use may require employers to consider reasonable accommodations for registered medical marijuana users. This is especially true in states like New York where medical marijuana patients are automatically considered disabled for purposes of the state's anti-discrimination laws.