HRLegalNews.com » Are problem drinkers protected by the law?

Are problem drinkers protected by the law?

May 19, 2008 by Sam Narisi
Posted in: Americans with Disabilities Act, FMLA, Latest News & Views

There’s nothing easy about confronting an alcoholic employee. But here’s how managers can do it without breaking the law.

Depending on the situation, employees with alcohol problems might get protection from two laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Neither Act give employees automatic immunity from discipline for performance or policy issues, like drinking on the job or unexcused absences. But they do protect people being treated for their problems.

FMLA

Under the FMLA, courts have ruled that alcoholism qualifies as a “serious health condition.” But unlike some other conditions, employees only get to take leave for the times they’re being treated.

So for example, a shift missed because the employee couldn’t drive to work isn’t covered. But time off to go to rehab is.

ADA

The ADA works in a similar way: Current abuse isn’t protected, but treatment is.

So you can discipline or fire someone who drinks on the job, assuming you have a uniform policy against it. But you may need to allow schedule changes for an employee to see a doctor, or let someone take breaks to call an AA sponsor.

Long story short, the courts have been clear: employers are allowed to prohibit alcohol consumption and inebriation in the workplace, and they don’t have to hold alcoholic employees to lower standards - as long as accommodations are made to help an employee get treatment.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Are problem drinkers protected by the law?”

  1. John Kazak Says:

    Is missing work for days, weeks or months due to incarceration for a drinking related offense reason for termination?

  2. Sam Narisi Says:

    John,

    A similar issue came up in a court case several years ago. An employee missed 2 weeks of work while he was in jail for a DWI (it wasn’t his first) and couldn’t make bail. He sued, but the court through the case out, finding his argument that the absence was protected because the actions that led to his arrest were related to his disability to be too much of a stretch.

    The case is Leary v. Dalton. Hope that helps.

    Sam Narisi

Leave a Reply


advertisement


advertisement