•  
  •  
 

Belmont Health Law Journal

Abstract

This note will address the disparities in the way courts have analyzed the direct threat exception to ADA protection, and why a uniform application of the exception is crucial to both employers and those in recovery. Part I examines how opioids have devolved from an effective pain management tool to a national enemy. This section will answer common questions about why opioids are so addictive and why doctors prescribe them in the first place. It also addresses the scope of the ADA and the direct threat exception used to justify a decision not to hire a prescription drug user, as well as the effort of ADA enforcement agencies to call attention to illegal hiring practices involving MAT.

Part II includes an analysis of several ADA employment discrimination cases implicating MAT. The cases demonstrate the widely varied standards courts have to define the “individualized assessment” required as proof for employers raising a defense to a discrimination claim.

Part III proposes a uniform standard by which to judge the individualized assessment. It explains why establishing a more specific standard, requiring an examination by a medical professional as part of the direct threat analysis, serves public policy interests. Further, it predicts how the outcome of a pending EEOC case could give employers further guidance with regard to the timing of the individualized assessment. This section concludes by encouraging employers to reform their drug screening policies, with specific practice pointers. These methods will achieve the goal of balancing employers’ right to enforce drug-free workplace policies with the protections granted by the ADA.

Share

COinS