Courts generally agree that an employee suffering from alcoholism has “a physical or mental impairment” — and, hence, a disability protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While an employer can deny employment to, discipline or discharge an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct, ADA provides that an employee whose poor performance or conduct is attributable to alcoholism may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation if he or she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.
The Family and Medical Leave Act affords similar entitlements and job protections to an employee who suffers from alcoholism — a serious health condition under FMLA — as long as “incapacity [is] caused by treatment and not for incapacity caused by addiction itself.” (Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2008))
These employment law interpretations recently helped a cook advance a $150,000 lawsuit against her former employer whom she says unfairly fired her for taking a leave of absence to seek treatment for alcoholism. The case is Diaz v. Saucon Valley Manor, Inc., 2013 WL 797713 (E.D. Pa., March 5, 2013).
Facts of the Case
Julie Diaz worked as a cook for Saucon Valley Manor, an assisted living facility in Hellertown, Pa.
In June 2010, Diaz asked her supervisor for one day off to attend a June 22, 2010 court hearing after being cited for public drunkenness. In addition, she requested FMLA leave to attend an inpatient alcohol abuse treatment program that required a 28-day stay at a rehabilitation center.
Diaz claimed that her supervisor approved her leave via the consent of Saucon Valley Manor President Nemita Atiyeh. She said she was told that she needed only to fax her treatment dates to Saucon.
In testimony before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Atiyeh said that she terminated Diaz on or around June 22 after hearing a rumor that Diaz was not at work, had been arrested for public drunkenness outside of the job and was entering rehabilitation for 28 days.
Atiyeh asserts that Saucon had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to fire Diaz because of her: (1) arrest for public drunkenness; (2) failure to show up for work; and (3) flagrant violation of Saucon’s policies.
Diaz contends that her public drunkenness was not a legitimate reason for her discharge because Atiyeh testified her arrest was unimportant and that Diaz was not arrested anyway, but was only cited by the Police.
Diaz also pointed to evidence that she lacked a history of being late or calling out of work, and that she received “excellent” scores on a job evaluation six weeks before her discharge.
Employer Takeaways
Courts may generally agree that an employee suffering from alcoholism has “a physical or mental impairment,” but they do not always agree that one or more of an employee’s major life activities is substantially limited by his or her addiction.
Nevertheless, in many cases, the court will find, or the employer will concede, that an alcoholic employee has a “disability” within the meaning of ADA.
Many ADA lawsuits based on alcoholism lose in court because the plaintiff cannot prove that he or she was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position. For example, attendance and punctuality are essential functions of most positions. If an alcoholic employee cannot meet these requirements, he or she may not been deemed “qualified” for the position; hence, he or she may not be protected under ADA.
For complete coverage, see “Employer May Need to Consider Accommodation for Alcohol-Related Disability, Says Court.”