...
Schmidt v. Safeway, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (864 F. Supp. 991), Decided June 9, 1994
Decision: The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may require an employer to provide a leave of absence to a driver with an alcohol problem so he or she can seek treatment, particularly if the employer would provide such a leave to other employees with disabilities.
Background: An employer terminated a truck driver, Stanley Schmidt, after being informed that he was intoxicated on the job, which was confirmed by an alcohol test. The employee claimed that he was an alcoholic and that he would have been able to perform his truck driving duties if the employer had granted his request for a medical leave to obtain treatment. He therefore alleged that the employer’s denial of his request for a leave constituted a failure to accommodate his disability under the ADA.
Schmidt brought the issue to court, alleging he was terminated from employment and denied reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.
Court’s Opinion: In siding with Schmidt, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon found that the ADA may require an employer to provide a leave of absence to an employee with an alcohol problem, particularly if the employer would provide such a leave to other employees with disabilities such as cancer or other illnesses requiring medical treatment.
The court also found that a leave of absence to obtain medical treatment would constitute a reasonable accommodation if it is likely that, following treatment, the employee would be able to safely perform his or her duties as a truck driver:
“An employer is not required to offer an accommodation that is likely to be futile because, even with the accommodation, the employee could not safely and efficiently perform the essential functions of the job. Thus an employer would not be required to provide repeated leaves of absence (or perhaps even a single leave of absence) for an alcoholic employee with a poor prognosis for recovery.”
The court also concluded that DOT rules do not authorize an employer to terminate an existing employee who was initially qualified for the position but subsequently developed a disqualifying condition that could be controlled with reasonable accommodation.