by A Minnesota employer is in the process of resolving a federal disability discrimination claim regarding how it handles employees who are undergoing treatment for alcoholism. In its first settlement resolving a claim of employment discrimination based on alcohol use disorder, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a complaint and proposed consent decree with the Minnesota federal district court to resolve allegations that the City of Blaine violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The issues addressed in the complaint and the settlement of charges turn on the fact that alcoholism, also known as alcohol use disorder, is a disability as defined under the ADA and under many state laws. Carving out exceptions to employer policies and practices that adversely affect employees based on a specific disability may be disability discrimination.
The City of Blaine has a policy that, for employees who test positive for alcohol misuse or controlled substances use, the City is not responsible for any costs associated with an employee’s positive test results. This includes any substance abuse professional (SAP) evaluations, follow-ups, education, and treatment, and return-to-duty or follow-up testing required by the City. However, the City pays for testing costs in other contexts for other health conditions and disabilities, including as part of pre-employment medical exams, after work-related accidents, and random testing. According to the DOJ complaint, this means that the City’s policies have deprived its employees with disabilities of equal employment opportunities and has adversely affected their status as employees because of their disabilities.
A City employee filed a federal disability discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after the City applied its policy following his voluntary notice that he needed a leave of absence to attend an alcohol treatment program. The City required the employee to immediately undergo a SAP evaluation and removed him from all safety sensitive duties until he completed all SAP recommendations. He was required to pass a return-to-duty test with negative results for controlled substances and alcohol. He was subject to repeated follow-up testing for several years upon his return to work. The employee had to pay for all testing and evaluations. In complying with the various employer requirements before and after completion of successful treatment, the employee incurred substantial expenses.
The EEOC investigated the charge and found reasonable cause to believe that the City’s actions in requiring payment and requiring other actions based on the nature of the disability was a violation of the ADA. Since the employer was a nonfederal governmental agency, the matter was referred to the DOJ for enforcement.
Under the consent decree, the City denies the allegations of ADA violations but agrees to compensate the employee. The city will also revise its policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that it does not discriminate based on disability, including with respect to medical testing, services, and examinations. Specifically, the employer will revise its policies and practices to provide that the employer will pay for SAP services and testing required by a SAP when an employee voluntarily discloses an alcohol use disorder or other disability or participates in a drug or alcohol educational or treatment program. It will also pay for SAP services and SAP required testing when an employee is subject to testing due to possession of a commercial driver’s license. The decree provides for a period of DOJ oversight of employer’s revised policies and mandated ADA training.
The complaint and consent decree applies to only one employer, but it serves as a good reminder for all employers that:
- Alcohol use disorder is a disability;
- Providing payment for addressing some disabilities but not others based solely on the nature of the disability can lead to charges of disability discrimination under the ADA; and
- Forcing an employee to pay costs of employer mandated action when the action is based on the disability of the employee can lead to charges of disability discrimination under the ADA.
The full text of the consent decree can be found at https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/consent_decree_-_u.s._v._city_of_blaine.pdf.
