Alcoholism Requires Inpatient Care Or Continuing Treatment To Qualify As An FMLA "Serious Health Condition"

In Their Opinion
Posted on January 25, 2011 by Michael Rigney
AMES v. HOME DEPOT (January 6, 2011)

Diane Ames had a five-year, incident free employment record with Home Depot when she asked her store manager for the company's assistance with her alcohol problem. She enrolled in the company's employee assistance program and was put on paid leave. She was told that she could return when she had a treatment plan, passed a drug and alcohol test, and obtained return authorization. She did so and returned to work within a month. The following month, however, she was arrested for driving under the influence. When Home Depot found out, it required her to schedule an alcohol treatment evaluation. The company gave her several extensions within which to schedule the evaluation. In the meantime, she sought scheduling accommodations from her manager so she could attend her Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, she provided her manager a treatment note from her physician, and she shared many of her other personal difficulties with her manager. During a regularly scheduled shift on December 23, an assistant manager suspected that she was under the influence of alcohol. She was immediately tested. When the company learned that she tested positive for alcohol, it decided to terminate her for substance abuse. Her manager scheduled a meeting with her on January 2 to notify her. She missed the meeting because she began drinking more and checked herself into a hospital on January 1. Home Depot mailed Ames a letter on January 10 informing her of the termination of her employment. Ames filed suit pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Home Depot on those claims. Ames appeals.

Full Story: http://www.intheiropinion.com/

Workplace rules and job requirements justify employers' termination decision in face of ADA claims based on alcoholism

Lexology
Hunton & Williams LLP
USA April 14 2010

Establishing work rules and job descriptions for employees not only provides employees with a better understanding of job expectations, but also helps protect employers from liability for discrimination and other employment-related claims. In Budde v. Kane County Preserve, No. 09-2040 (7th Cir. March 4, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that the ADA does not protect an employee who violates workplace rules from discipline up to and including termination, even if the violation is caused by a disability.
In Budde, Charles Budde, the police chief for the Kane County Forest Preserve District (the “District”) in Kane County, Illinois, caused a car accident and injured two people when he drove after consuming several glasses of wine. As a result, Budde was charged with driving under the influence and his license was suspended while the criminal process was pending. The District fired Budde before the criminal process was complete, explaining in a letter that his termination was due to “a pattern of errors in judgment on [his] part,” inability to perform his job “due to the suspension of [his] license,” and “engaging in conduct that is below the standard expectation for [his] position.”
In response to his termination, Budde sued the District under the ADA claiming, among other things, discrimination based on his alleged disability of alcoholism. The U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the District, finding that Budde was fired for misconduct, not his alleged disability.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6fa6cdf9-2ce0-46bd-9075-205814ff8762&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-04-26&utm_term=