When Are Alcoholism, Drug Addiction Considered Disabilities?

September 1, 2023

Questions of Accommodation


By Trevor Brice, Esq.

As we move out of the COVID-19 era, employees are struggling more frequently with drug and alcohol addiction. As such, it is important for employers to know that alcoholism and drug addiction can qualify as disabilities under federal and Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws.


If an employee suffers from alcoholism or drug addiction, the employer could be exposed to liability for discriminating against that employee or failing to grant the employee a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s alcoholism or drug addiction. However, alcoholism and drug addiction do not qualify as disabilities in all circumstances.

 

Alcoholism and Drug Addiction as Disabilities

Despite the possibility that alcoholism or drug addiction can qualify as legal disabilities, employers do not have to tolerate employees who are drunk or under the influence on the job. As such, employees cannot excuse being under the influence at work by claiming that they suffer from alcoholism or drug addiction.


Furthermore, employees cannot request to be drunk or under the influence at work as a reasonable accommodation for alcoholism or drug addiction. In these circumstances, the employee would not be a ‘qualified’ alcoholic or drug addict that would meet the definition of disability under the ADA. Consequently, the ADA does not cover those who are currently engaging in use of illegal drugs or alcohol.


In addition, an employee who is an alcoholic or drug addict can lose their qualification as a disabled individual due to low performance, as the ADA specifically provides that an employer can hold a drug-addicted or alcoholic employee to the same standards and behaviors as other employees.


However, a high-performing alcoholic or drug-addicted employee can be qualified under the ADA if the employee is no longer engaging in illegal drug use or alcohol.

 

Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA

Reasonable accommodations for employees who are recovering alcoholics or drug addicts can include seeking time off for inpatient treatment; time off to undergo outpatient treatment, including methadone clinics; or being excused from work events that involve alcohol. However, qualified alcoholics and drug addicts do not necessarily need to be granted accommodation every time they ask.


For example, if a drug-addicted employee requests a reasonable accommodation in response to discipline for unacceptable performance or conduct, the employer does not have to grant that accommodation if the low performance is attributable to the current use of drugs.


However, if the low performance is due to alcohol, and the employee specifically notes this in her accommodation request, it is the employer’s responsibility to engage in an interactive dialogue to determine whether or not the requested accommodation is reasonable. Absent undue hardship, the employee may have to grant the employee’s reasonable-accommodation request, such as a modified work schedule to enter treatment or to attend an ongoing self-help program.


However, another wrinkle presents itself when the reasonable accommodation is in response to a court order for an alcohol- or drug-related offense. As a recent court case (Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P.) notes, employers do not have to grant a requested accommodation of leave in relation to a court-order DUI for a recovering alcoholic.


Further, the employer can offer the employee a “firm choice” or “last-chance agreement,” in which the employee can be terminated for future poor performance or misconduct resulting from drug or alcohol addiction. The agreement will normally state that the employee’s continued employment is conditioned on the employee’s agreement to receive substance-abuse treatment and refrain from further use of alcohol or drugs.

 

Conclusion

When an employer is determining whether an accommodation for disabled employees is reasonable, it is a difficult task in and of itself. When the question becomes whether the employee is actually disabled due to current or past alcohol or illegal drug use, the question for the employer becomes even harder. If an employee is seeking a questionable accommodation request for alcoholism or drug addiction, it is prudent to seek out representation from employment counsel.


This article was published in the September 1, 2023 edition of BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website!

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.