Royal

When Are Alcoholism, Drug Addiction Considered Disabilities?

Sep 01, 2023

Questions of Accommodation


By Trevor Brice, Esq.

As we move out of the COVID-19 era, employees are struggling more frequently with drug and alcohol addiction. As such, it is important for employers to know that alcoholism and drug addiction can qualify as disabilities under federal and Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws.


If an employee suffers from alcoholism or drug addiction, the employer could be exposed to liability for discriminating against that employee or failing to grant the employee a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s alcoholism or drug addiction. However, alcoholism and drug addiction do not qualify as disabilities in all circumstances.

 

Alcoholism and Drug Addiction as Disabilities

Despite the possibility that alcoholism or drug addiction can qualify as legal disabilities, employers do not have to tolerate employees who are drunk or under the influence on the job. As such, employees cannot excuse being under the influence at work by claiming that they suffer from alcoholism or drug addiction.


Furthermore, employees cannot request to be drunk or under the influence at work as a reasonable accommodation for alcoholism or drug addiction. In these circumstances, the employee would not be a ‘qualified’ alcoholic or drug addict that would meet the definition of disability under the ADA. Consequently, the ADA does not cover those who are currently engaging in use of illegal drugs or alcohol.


In addition, an employee who is an alcoholic or drug addict can lose their qualification as a disabled individual due to low performance, as the ADA specifically provides that an employer can hold a drug-addicted or alcoholic employee to the same standards and behaviors as other employees.


However, a high-performing alcoholic or drug-addicted employee can be qualified under the ADA if the employee is no longer engaging in illegal drug use or alcohol.

 

Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA

Reasonable accommodations for employees who are recovering alcoholics or drug addicts can include seeking time off for inpatient treatment; time off to undergo outpatient treatment, including methadone clinics; or being excused from work events that involve alcohol. However, qualified alcoholics and drug addicts do not necessarily need to be granted accommodation every time they ask.


For example, if a drug-addicted employee requests a reasonable accommodation in response to discipline for unacceptable performance or conduct, the employer does not have to grant that accommodation if the low performance is attributable to the current use of drugs.


However, if the low performance is due to alcohol, and the employee specifically notes this in her accommodation request, it is the employer’s responsibility to engage in an interactive dialogue to determine whether or not the requested accommodation is reasonable. Absent undue hardship, the employee may have to grant the employee’s reasonable-accommodation request, such as a modified work schedule to enter treatment or to attend an ongoing self-help program.


However, another wrinkle presents itself when the reasonable accommodation is in response to a court order for an alcohol- or drug-related offense. As a recent court case (Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P.) notes, employers do not have to grant a requested accommodation of leave in relation to a court-order DUI for a recovering alcoholic.


Further, the employer can offer the employee a “firm choice” or “last-chance agreement,” in which the employee can be terminated for future poor performance or misconduct resulting from drug or alcohol addiction. The agreement will normally state that the employee’s continued employment is conditioned on the employee’s agreement to receive substance-abuse treatment and refrain from further use of alcohol or drugs.

 

Conclusion

When an employer is determining whether an accommodation for disabled employees is reasonable, it is a difficult task in and of itself. When the question becomes whether the employee is actually disabled due to current or past alcohol or illegal drug use, the question for the employer becomes even harder. If an employee is seeking a questionable accommodation request for alcoholism or drug addiction, it is prudent to seek out representation from employment counsel.


This article was published in the September 1, 2023 edition of BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website!

ALERT: EEOC Releases Workplace Guidance to Prevent Harassment

01 May, 2024
On April 29 th , 2024, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized their guidance in harassment in the workplace after receiving and responding to nearly 38,000 public comments on the proposed guidance released on October 2, 2023. The renewed guidance provides numerous clarifying hypotheticals, and addresses more recent issues including protections for LGBTIQA+ employees and remote work. Of note, the EEOC clarified the scope of sex discrimination and harassment, stating that federal protections under Title VII extend to LGBTIQA+ employees. Specifically, the EEOC made clear that the scope of harassment extends to repeatedly and intentionally misgendering employees or denying access to bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity. Further, this guidance reminds employers that discrimination and harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, which include employees’ decisions related to contraception and abortion. Several public comments suggested that these guidelines infringed on free speech and religious rights. The EEOC did not directly address these concerns, instead stating that free speech and religious rights issues are fact-specific and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Further, the EEOC updated guidance related to the remote work environment. The EEOC clarified that conduct in a virtual work environment, including electronic communications using private phones, computers, or social media accounts can contribute to a hostile work environment if they impact the workplace. The EEOC also clarified that conduct occurring outside of the workplace, including on social media, which does not target the employer or its employees and is not brought into the workplace generally will not contribute to a hostile work environment. Finally, the EEOC updated its Anti-Harassment Policy Requirements, stating that an anti-harassment and discrimination policy should be widely disseminated to employees, in a manner that is understandable by all employees and includes i) a definition of prohibited conduct, ii) a requirement that supervisors report harassment, iii) multiple avenues for reporting harassment, iv) a statement that clearly identifies accessible points of contact for reporting purposes, and v) an explanation of the complaint process, including adequate anti-retaliation and confidentiality protections, and prompt and effective investigation and corrective action. You can read more about the EEOC's ruling on their website by clicking here . If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Non-Compete Agreements Are in Jeopardy

26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.
Share by: