Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hussey Copper Ltd.
22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1821, 696 F.Supp.2d 505, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22920 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer's decision to disqualify an applicant based on a perceived disability must be founded on a rigorous, individualized assessment of the applicant's present ability to safely perform the job's essential functions, not on stereotypes or generalizations about their medical condition or treatment.
Facts:
- Donald Teaford was recovering from a prior addiction to illegal opiates and, as of May 2007, was receiving treatment at a supervised methadone clinic.
- In July 2007, Hussey Copper Ltd. ('Hussey') sought to hire production laborers for its copper mill, a facility it considered a 'safety-sensitive' environment.
- On July 25, 2007, Teaford applied for a production laborer position with Hussey.
- Hussey extended a conditional offer of employment to Teaford on July 28, 2007, contingent upon his passage of a physical exam, drug test, and background check.
- During his pre-employment physical on July 30, 2007, Teaford did not disclose his methadone treatment, but his mandatory urine sample tested positive for the substance.
- Dr. Daniel Nackley, the medical director for the third-party clinic conducting the physical, recommended that Teaford not perform safety-sensitive work due to his methadone use.
- Dr. Nackley made his recommendation without personally examining Teaford, without speaking to Teaford’s treating physician, and without utilizing an available neuro-cognitive test to assess any potential impairment.
- Based exclusively on Dr. Nackley's recommendation, Hussey rescinded Teaford's job offer on August 22, 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Hussey Copper Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a federal trial court.
- The EEOC later filed an Amended Complaint.
- After discovery concluded, Hussey filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a full trial.
- The district court is now ruling on Hussey's Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 by rescinding a conditional job offer to a recovering drug addict based on a third-party physician's recommendation that the applicant cannot perform safety-sensitive work, when that recommendation is not based on an individualized assessment of the applicant's actual abilities and potential risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Fischer, District Judge
Yes, an employer may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by rescinding a conditional job offer based on a physician's recommendation that is not supported by a required individualized assessment of the applicant's ability to safely perform the job. The court found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) established genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hussey engaged in the necessary individualized assessment of Teaford's condition. The ADA requires an individualized inquiry focusing on the medical condition's actual effect on the specific plaintiff. Dr. Nackley, upon whose opinion Hussey exclusively relied, never met or personally examined Teaford, did not speak with Teaford's treating physician, and failed to use available objective tests, such as a neuro-cognitive exam, to determine if Teaford's methadone use actually impeded his ability to work safely. Furthermore, Hussey failed to carry its burden on the 'direct threat' defense, which requires an objective, evidence-based finding of a high probability of substantial harm, not mere speculation. Because the assessment lacked the individualized, objective inquiry required by law, Hussey's motion for summary judgment was denied.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the ADA's requirement for a truly individualized assessment in disability-related employment decisions, particularly in the context of safety-sensitive jobs. It clarifies that an employer cannot insulate itself from liability by simply relying on the recommendation of a third-party physician if that physician's assessment is itself deficient. The opinion serves as a warning against blanket policies or assumptions regarding individuals in methadone treatment programs, emphasizing that employers must base their decisions on objective medical evidence specific to the applicant, rather than on general stereotypes about their treatment. This precedent pressures employers to ensure their medical evaluation processes are thorough, objective, and compliant with the ADA's rigorous standards.
