Delaware Employment Law Blog

A disgruntled airplane pilot sued the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) seeking to have his pilot’s license reinstated. The FAA terminated his license after the pilot failed a drug test. The pilot claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support his termination. The suit made its way to a federal appeals court after an administrative hearing and the National Transportation Safety Board affirmed the FAA’s decision.  The federal court, I'm glad to say, upheld the termination decision, marking a sad day for crack-smoking employees in highly safety-sensitive jobs.

Mark Toth of the Manpower Employment Blog has a great summary of the case in his post, Court Upholds Termination of Crack-Smoking Pilot:

• February 15:  Pilot Charles Gabbard smoked crack cocaine.
• February 16:  Gabbard submitted to a random drug test.
• February 17:  Gabbard piloted a chartered jet.
• February 21: Gabbard’s test results show a cocaine metabolite level seven times higher than the regulatory limit. (Cocaine takes 24-48 hours to clear the system.)

In April 2007, the FAA terminated Gabbard’s pilot’s license based on the positive drug test and the agency’s conclusion that he had piloted the February 17 flight “while having a prohibited drug, cocaine in [his] system.”

Drug-Free Friendly Skies: Too Much to Ask?

The Sixth Circuit concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find that Gabbard indeed had taken drugs prior to flying.  Given the window of time for the drug test to show a positive result, he had smoked crack no more than 42-44 hours before takeoff. 

Mark Toth points out Gabbard's creative (i.e., ludicrous) arguments:

(1) he may have smoked a cigarette that, unbeknownst to him, was laced with crack;

(2)  the cocaine may have gotten into his system due to plastic surgery; or

(3) perhaps he inhaled the fumes of crack cocaine that just happened to waft by.

But the Sixth Circuit didn't buy it.  What mattered was that, regardless of how he intentionally or accidentally ingested the drug, he should have notified his employer immediately, rather than preparing for takeoff as usual.

One final note about the case.  Gabbard also tried to argue that he'd been a victim of incompetent representation by his lawyer at the administrative hearing.  Needless to say, the court disregarded the contention, holding that adequate representation is an issue for the criminal courts.  Since that's the case, given the circumstances, Mr. Gabbard may be able to reuse that argument sometime in the not-so-distant future when he likely finds himself before a criminal court.  And, hopefully for him, his lawyer will not have "accidentally" ingested an illegal narcotic prior before representing Gabbard in any legal proceedings, criminal or otherwise.

Other Recent Cases Involving Terminations for Illegal Conduct and Drug Testing

EEOC Sues Pittsburgh Drug Clinic for Terminating Recovering-Addict Employee for Failing Random Drug Test

One More Reason Every Employee Should Be Required to Complete a Job Application: School Is Ordered to Reinstate Convicted Killer to Teaching Position

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed suit under the ADA against a Pittsburgh drug-treatment center.  The suit, which is brought on behalf of a former clinic employee under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleges disability-based discrimination.  The employee, a recovering drug addict, worked full-time as a counselor at the clinic when was terminated when she tested positive for methadone in a random drug test.  

The Greenbriar Treatment Center in New Kensington, is alleged to have fired the employee despite her claim that she had a legal prescription for the methadone, which she'd been receiving through a treatment program since 2002.  She was later berated by her former boss, who told her that she "should be ashamed of herself."  The EEOC contends that the termination was unlawful discrimination against a person with a disability. 

The Americans With Disabilities Act & Illegal Drug Use

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does not protect current drug users.  But it does protect those who are in recovery for drug or alcohol abuse. 

The EEOC's Technical Assistance Manual for the ADA has the following to say about the use of illegal drugs as a disability:

Regarding Persons Currently In Recovery:

Persons addicted to drugs, but who are no longer using drugs illegally and are receiving treatment for drug addiction or who have been rehabilitated successfully, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction.

For example

An addict who is currently in a drug rehabilitation program and has not used drugs illegally for some time is not excluded from the protection of the ADA. This person will be protected by the ADA because s/he has a history of addiction, or if s/he is "regarded as" being addicted. Similarly, an addict who is rehabilitated or who has successfully completed a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer illegally using drugs is not excluded from the ADA.

Regarding Persons Currently Using:

However, a person who casually used drugs illegally in the past, but did not become addicted is not an individual with a disability based on the past drug use. In order for a person to be "substantially limited" because of drug use, s/he must be addicted to the drug.

To ensure that drug use is not recurring, an employer may request evidence that an individual is participating in a drug rehabilitation program or may request the results of a drug test.

Not having seen the complaint, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what type of facts may be alleged to support the EEOC's claim.  To present a viable claim, the EEOC has to allege that the employee (1) is disabled, presumably because of her drug addiction; and (2) she suffered some adverse action, presumably the termination; and (3) Number 1 was the reason for Number 2; i.e., that she was fired because of her drug addiction. 

My initial reactions to this scenario:  What was the clinic's drug policy? I'd think it would be more comprehensive than most.  Did it address methadone?  What was the clinic's position, if any, on methadone programs as a recovery treatment?  And, of course, wasn't there a pre-employment drug test?  If so, did she test positive for methadone?  If she did, well, it seems like clinic could be in a bad spot.  If she didn't, was she still using illegal drugs?  Would that have been a piece of after-acquired evidence (i.e., falsifying drug test results, etc.) upon which the employer could have terminated her?  That would be a reason other than a "disability."

The merits of the case may also depend on how the court defines a "recovery program" as that term is used in the EEOC's Guidance, above.  It isn't clear from the EEOC's own definition whether the methadone program would qualify.

A "rehabilitation program" may include in-patient, out-patient, or employee assistance programs, or recognized self-help programs such as Narcotics Anonymous.

Source:  Post Gazette at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08166/889903-56.stm