Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc: An Employee on Legal Prescription Medication May be Fired For Safety Reasons as Long as the Employee is not “Disabled”

In a unanimous decision, the Sixth Circuit held that section 12112(b)(6) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers’ use of tests that tend to screen out disabled individuals does not protect employees who are not disabled. In Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., decided November 3, 2010, the Court held that, although non-disabled individuals may bring claims under some provisions of the Act, the plain text of subsection (b)(6) concerning “impermissible medical examinations” only covers individuals with disabilities.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in this case were seven former employees of a Tennessee company called Dura Automotive, which manufactures glass windows for motor vehicles.  The employees performed a wide range of jobs at Dura: driving tow motors, assembling windows, painting primer on frames, and trimming and performing water testing. 

Concerned over what it viewed as a higher than normal rate of accidents, the Company banned the use of several legal drugs that it believed had a negative impact on safety, company property or job performance.  Working with an independent lab, the company screened employees for twelve substances, including those found in many legal prescription drugs such as Xanax, Lotab and Oxycodone.

The plaintiffs all tested positive for these types of drugs but had legitimate prescriptions.  The Company gave each employee the opportunity to transition to other drugs but refused to consider notes from the employees’ doctors indicating that the drugs would not impact their work performance.  Eventually, the employees were terminated when they refused to stop taking the drugs they had been prescribed.

The employees sued the Company claiming that Dura’s actions constituted an “impermissible medical examination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court analyzed the claim under section 12112(b)(6) of the ADA, which applies to qualifications standards, employment tests and other selection criteria. 

District Court’s conclusion, as relevant here, was that six of the plaintiffs were indeed not disabled but that 12112(b)(6) applied nonetheless.  However, the District Court recognized that there was a difference of opinion on this question and certified this issue for interlocutory appeal, which the Sixth Circuit granted.

On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit considered only the issue of whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiffs have to be disabled to pursue 12112(b)(6) claims.

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER 12112(b)(6) of the ADA UNLESS THEY ARE DISABLED

The Court’s Holding

The Sixth Circuit began by reviewing the applicable statutory language:

(a) General rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual . . . 

(b) Construction

As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term “discriminate” includes . . .

(6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity . .  . [emphasis added]

Subsection (b)(6) specifically references section (a)[“as used in subsection (a) of this section”].  Subsection (a) specifically references “a qualified individual with a disability.” Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that, although non-disabled individuals may bring claims under some provisions of the Act, the plain text of subsection (b)(6) only covers individuals with disabilities.¹

It is difficult to see how the Court could have reached any other conclusion due to the language of the statute.

As a result, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court and directed it to dismiss the 12112(b)(6) claims of the non-disabled plaintiffs.

SIGNIFICANCE

After Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc, attorneys for employees would seem more likely to take the approach that the employee’s need for these medications makes the employee “disabled.”

An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. ²

It then becomes an issue of fact and the employer is free to present expert testimony at trial to show that the employee’s need for medication does not make him or her “disabled.”  This is quite a different matter from resolving the issue at the pleading stage, however, and is much less desirable to the employer.

However, even if the employee is disabled, the employee must be qualified to do the job.  If the employee’s disability requires the use of medications that make operating heavy machinery unsafe then the employee may not be qualified for that job.  However, that is beyond the scope of the Bates case as decided on appeal.

Connect on Linkedin®

Jeremy J. Gray

Also See:

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church v. EEOC: Supreme Court Confirms Ministerial Exception to Employment

US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen: Third Circuit Limits ERISA Fiduciary Relief; Allows Equitable Reformation

Reid v. Google: Stray Remarks May Be Considered Evidence of Discrimination

City of Ontario v. Quon: Limited Privacy Rights for Employer-Issued Equipment

In Re Visteon Corp. : Plan Sponsor Cannot Unilaterally Terminate Retirement Benefits While in Bankruptcy