Alcoholics are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. From the ADA’s website a disability means
How do alcoholics fit that?
Being addicted to alcohol costs money, can isolate you socially, is hard both physically and mentally to stop, and can cause health problems leading to death. So is being addicted to nicotine and again a bunch of other (mostly illegal) drugs.
Why is alcohol different?
(I’m not trying to down play alcoholism or any other addiction here; people who have gotten sober/clean/whatever have a bigger accomplishment than I have).
posting mostly to subscribe as I don’t really have an answer to your question.
That said, has anyone ever sued a law enforcement agency on ADA grounds if the arrest was related to their disability? Specifically, something like addiction? (although I’d be interested in any such cases)
sorry if this seems a hijack, it appears to be a very related question to me.
It’s not. Under the ADA, nearly all substance addictions qualify as disabling conditions, as long as the addict is in or has completed a qualifying rehabilitation program.
For the purposes of Social Security disability benefits (SSDI and SSI), drug addiction and alcholism (DA&A) will disqualify you from receiving benefits if the addiction is material to persistence of your disability. Under the regulations, to be disabled means that you are not capable of performing work-related functions on a sustained basis such that you are not a competitive candidate for substantial and gainful employment. This means that the claimant is capable of no other work; merely showing that some jobs are excluded (even jobs that the claimant has held for a very long time) will not suffice. (There are certain exceptions to this in the form of the Medical-Vocational Grid Rules.)
As it turns out, DA&A is often comorbid with other psychological maladies (depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) and physical conditions (some caused by the addiction, like Hep C or cirrhosis; others merely coincidentally, like osteoarthritis). If you are disabled, as defined above, when all of your impairments (including the addiction) are considered, but not disabled when all of your impairments with the addiction excluded are considered, then the addiction is said to be material to your disability and you are not entitled to benefits. If you are disabled with and without your DA&A, the addiction is not material and you get benefits. If you are not disabled even with DA&A, the analysis ends there: DA&A is not material and no benefits are forthcoming. This analysis is often conducted by looking at the claimant’s functioning during a period of sobriety (many times imposed by an in-patient hospitalization or rehab stay).
Why is this so? It represents a policy decision not to provide benefits (which at least resembles “rewarding”) behavior that is often illegal and that society wishes to discourage. Furthermore, notice that an addiction which does not preclude any and all employment, such as a smoking habit, is not considered a disability at all for the purposes of Social Security programs.
Kimmy_Gibbler, I may be missing part of what you said, but the way I read that Social Security says you are disabled if you have a psychological malady whether or not you have D&AD, ie, you aren’t disqualified for DA&A. That makes sense.
But I don’t think it should count when it comes to the ADA. For example I would be pissed if I got sued for not renting my condo to someone who is known for getting drunk and trashing his home.
I don’t think the ADA has provisions for housing, but the Fair Housing Act does prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.
With respect to the person who trashes his house, you would be subjecting to differential treatment on the basis of his past behavior as a tenant, not his disability, its symptoms, or its treatment. It would therefore be allowed.
If, on the other hand, you denied him a lease because you don’t want someone who’s going to outpatient counseling, that would perhaps be impermissible discrimination.
Disability under ADA is not the same as disability under Social Security. I technically have a disability that prevents discrimination on the basis of, but I don’t qualify ‘for disability income’.
Well, yeah. The reason for that difference is that alcohol isn’t illegal. It’s a little unfair to expect employers to keep people who are actively using illicit drugs on their payrolls; after all, they’re criminals.
Anyway, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. You can still fire a person for showing up drunk or failing a required screening, or engaging in any misconduct they claim is caused by alcoholism. That is not being fired for “having a disability” according to the courts. It is being fired for an act in violation of the employer’s code of conduct or standards for performance.
See: Vandenbroek v. PSEG Power Conn. L.L.C., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18320, at *15-17 (D. Conn. 2009), aff’d, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26965 (2d Cir. 2009)(When an employee claims that they were fired for misconduct that was caused by substance addiction, it is not actionable under the ADA even if true. Violation of the employer’s conduct rules is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination against which a claim under the ADA must fail unless the employee offers some proof that the reason given for the firing is just a pretext)
see also Daft v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 251 Fed. Appx. 480, 482 (9th Cir. 2007)(alcoholic employee who tested positive for alcohol in the workplace was properly terminated for his misconduct, not for being an alcoholic).
In practice “alcoholism” being covered by the ADA basically means the employer can’t fire you simply because they have discovered you have a personal past history of alcoholism.