Recently, a federal court in Utah reinforced the notion that a clear substance abuse policy can save employers a lot of time and money in court cases.  On November 23, 2015 the court upheld the termination of employee Angel who was unable to prove he was a victim of disability discrimination. 

Before beginning work with Lisbon Valley Mining Company, Kevin L. Angel received and signed the company’s prescription drug policy.  This policy outlined that all employees taking prescription medications that could impair their ability to perform their jobs in a safe manner must disclose the medications to the Human Resources department, and they must obtain a release from the company’s occupational physician, which would specify any kind of restrictions for that employee while on the medication.  It also stated that this must all take place before the employee conducts any work after having taken the medication.  Further, the policy stated that employees who are in violation of this policy could face disciplinary action up to immediate termination. 

Approximately two months later during a random drug test, Angel tested positive for Oxycodone.  When questioned about it, Angel admitted that he received a prescription for the medication for back pain.  He also admitted that he had been using it for approximately one month while continuing to work, without informing the Human Resources Department and without obtaining a release from the occupational physician.  Due to his clear violations of the prescription medication policy, Angel was terminated per the company’s routine procedure.

Angel filed suit against Lisbon Valley Mining Company, claiming retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He claimed that while he had not informed the company of his disability prior to the drug test, they did become aware of it after he tested positive for Oxycodone.  But the court ruled that Angel did not put Lisbon Valley Mining Company on notice, and it was not sufficient evidence of a disability to simply state he was disabled after he tested positive for Oxycodone.  Therefore, it could not have been a factor in the company’s decision to terminate him.

In addition, by not following the prescription medication policy, Angel did not give Lisbon Valley Mining Company the chance to engage in the “interactive dialogue” that is a critical requirement the ADA in order to arrive at a reasonable accommodation for Angel while he was on the medication. The court dismissed all claims brought forth by Angel.

Angel v. Lisbon Valley Mining Co. is a reminder that employers with safety-sensitive positions must have a policy of disclosing prescription medications that cause impairment prior to allowing those employees to perform any work. The purpose is to ensure that those employees receive reasonable accommodations, and that no other employees are put at risk by an employee who is impaired by medication.

While some applicants and employees take issue with disclosing their personal prescriptions to their Human Resources departments, it is important to remember that prescription information does not reveal the underlying medical condition that requires the medication.  The underlying cause for the medication should never be asked or required of applicants or employees.  Further,  the occupational physician should not release this information to the employer. 

Lastly, a policy of disclosing impairing medications prior to working should only be required of employees that hold safety-sensitive positions such as vehicle drivers, heavy machine operators, hi-lo drivers, etc.  There is no justification for requiring this information of employees who do not work in safety-sensitive positions; to do so would be an invasion of privacy under the law.

For help implementing an appropriate substance abuse policy in your workplace, contact Nicole Sitter at [email protected].

Sources: Jackson Lewis 11/25/15; Workforce, “The Practical Employer” 8/28/14