Ostrowski v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22091 (3d. Cir. 10/30/13)

The Third Circuit holds that an employee’s violation of a return to work agreement requiring the employee to refrain from consuming alcohol did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The employee was employed as a driver/sales representative for a company, which was required to maintain strict drug and alcohol screening programs for its employees in accordance with the federal motor carrier safety regulations issued by the Department of Transportation. During his employment, the employee requested a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act to seek treatment for alcoholism. The employee’s request was granted, and he was not disciplined for seeking treatment. However, the employer required that the employee sign a “Return to Work Agreement,” which mandated that he remain “free of drugs and alcohol (on company time as well as off company time) for the duration of [his] employment.” Within a month of executing the agreement, the employee admitted himself into a center for treatment of alcohol abuse after he suffered a relapse. Based upon the employee’s violation of the Return to Work Agreement, the employer terminated his employment. The employee filed this lawsuit, alleging that his termination violated the ADA and the FMLA. After summary judgment was entered in favor of the employer, the decision was appealed to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the employer did not violate the ADA and the FMLA. In so holding, the Third Circuit reasoned that “employers do not violate the ADA merely by entering into return-to-work agreements that impose employment conditions different from those of other employees,” as the difference in conditions “results from the terms of [the employee’s] agreement rather than disability discrimination.” Significantly, the Third Circuit further noted that the employee “does not explain how the [Return to Work Agreement], to which he voluntarily agreed, tends to discriminate against him because of his alleged disability (alcoholism) as opposed to regulating his conduct (drinking alcohol)” and, rather, the Return to Work Agreement “does not restrict the ability of individuals who suffer from alcoholism to work at [the company]…it simply prohibits employees subject to its terms from consuming alcohol.”

 

Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014