Here’s what happened:

The employee left work early one day and began drinking. That night, he was arrested for threatening his wife with a gun.

When he returned to work, the company told him — based on a doctor’s recommendation — that he’d have to enter rehab if he wanted to keep his job. He refused the treatment, so he was fired.

He sued, claiming the employer “regarded him as disabled” and let him go in violation of the ADA.

Who won the case? The company.

As the court ruled, the ADA only protects substance abusers who are being treated for their addictions. Also, without medical assistance, the man was clearly a threat to himself and co-workers.

Therefore, requiring treatment as condition of continued employment was a perfectly reasonable step for the company to take.

Cite: Kozisek v. County of Seward, Nebraska

Here’s what happened:

A recovering alcoholic worked for a company in Indiana. He had attendance problems and was a few absences away from termination. One day he relapsed, and his wife called the hospital to have him admitted.

He didn’t start getting treated for a few days, but he missed three days of work in the meantime. So the company fired him.

He sued, claiming all his absences were covered by FMLA. But the company argued the first few weren’t. The law only gives time off for treatment of substance abuse – not incapacity due to the abuse itself.

The court agreed with the company.

The man argued that the treatment period should include the time he spent waiting for admittance to the hospital. But the law’s the law, the judge said. And under FMLA, “treatment” means actually seeing a doctor.

Cite: Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp.

The facts:

An employee missed two weeks of work without authorization. Why? He was arrested for a DUI (his second offense) and couldn’t make bail, so he spent two weeks in prison. No shocker here: The company fired him. But he sued, claiming the absence was caused by a disability (alcoholism) — therefore he had the right to take time off.

The employer said:

The laws give companies several obligations for accommodating employees with addictions — but giving them time off for incarceration isn’t one of them. Firing him was the only reasonable choice.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: The employee claimed the absence was caused by actions that were “a manifestation of his disability.” Therefore, firing him for those absences was, in essence, firing him for his disability.

But the judge wasn’t willing to make that stretch. Generally, addicted workers are only granted time off to seek treatment, not because the addiction makes them unable to work.

Cite: Leary v. Dalton