Bryan Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp.
20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1860, 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 609, 726 F.3d 675 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) 'safe harbor' provision does not protect an employee who is a current drug user, even if participating in a rehabilitation program, unless they have been drug-free for a significant period. Furthermore, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not entitle an employee to reinstatement if the employer terminates them for a legitimate reason unrelated to the leave, such as violating a consistently applied company drug-free workplace policy.
Facts:
- For twelve years, Bryan Shirley worked for Wyman-Gordon Forgings, L.P. (W-G) and developed an addiction to the prescription painkiller Vicodin, obtaining multiple prescriptions from various doctors.
- W-G maintained a drug-free workplace policy which stipulated that any employee who leaves a treatment program before being properly discharged will be terminated.
- Following a near overdose in November 2009, Shirley requested and was granted medical leave from W-G to enter the Memorial Hermann Prevention and Recovery Center for addiction treatment.
- On December 5, 2009, after completing detoxification but against medical advice, Shirley discharged himself from the treatment program.
- W-G informed Shirley that his early departure was grounds for termination but offered him a second chance to re-enter and successfully complete the Memorial Hermann program.
- Shirley re-admitted himself to the program on December 11, but again checked himself out after only one day without completing the treatment component.
- On December 14, 2009, W-G fired Shirley for twice failing to complete the required treatment program in accordance with its policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Bryan Shirley sued Precision Castparts Corp. and its related entities (Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of the ADA and FMLA.
- The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Shirley's claims.
- Shirley, as Plaintiff-Appellant, filed a timely appeal of the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating an employee who took leave for drug treatment but was subsequently fired for twice failing to complete the required rehabilitation program, thereby violating the company's established drug-free workplace policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Circuit Judge
No. An employer does not violate the ADA or FMLA by terminating an employee for violating a legitimate company policy, even if the employee is on FMLA leave for a condition that may also be a disability. The court held that Shirley was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA because he was a 'current' drug user, as his use was recent enough to justify his employer's belief that it was an ongoing problem. He did not qualify for the ADA's 'safe harbor' provision because merely entering a rehabilitation program is insufficient; the provision protects individuals who have been drug-free for a significant period, not active users. Regarding the FMLA claim, the court reasoned that the right to reinstatement is not absolute. An employer can deny reinstatement if it can show the employee would have been terminated for a legitimate reason unrelated to the FMLA leave. Here, W-G terminated Shirley for a valid, non-pretextual reason: his repeated violation of the company's clear drug-free workplace policy, which required completion of the treatment program.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundaries of ADA and FMLA protections for employees with substance abuse issues. It reinforces that the ADA's 'safe harbor' is intended for individuals in sustained recovery, not to shield employees from the consequences of active drug use and non-compliance with treatment. By affirming that the FMLA does not protect an employee from termination for violating a legitimate, non-discriminatory company policy, the ruling empowers employers to enforce established workplace rules consistently. This precedent solidifies an employer's right to condition continued employment on the successful completion of a required rehabilitation program, even when FMLA and ADA considerations are in play.
