Re: Employment Discrimination and Marijuana Use Since Fired
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
Does this mean I can get disabled plates if I'm an alcoholic?
I get the sarcasm, but just in case anyone took that question seriously the answer, at least in most states, is no. The definition of disability under the ADA is much broader than a disability that will get you qualified for disabled plates in most states. There are a lot of disabilities that do not affect mobility such that one would need a disabled parking spot.
Note that while the ADA statute itself addresses alcoholism and makes it clear that alcoholism itself can be a disability under the Act, the use of alcohol is specifically stated as not protected under the ADA.
Re: Employment Discrimination and Marijuana Use Since Fired
"Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?
A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol."
Generally ADA protects RECOVERING alcoholics and those in rehab. Don't see how you are recovering if you were caught buying and transporting alcohol in a company vehicle. So I don't see where your ADA case has any merit. Buying alcohol as an admitted alcoholic and bringing it home in a work vehicle was not smart. Congrats on the 3 weeks sober, but unfortunately for you, you slipped and the employer caught it during that slip, not while you were still recovering or in rehab.
Did you sign a background check authorization from Company B? Did it have a hold harmless against former employers and what they might disclose? If Company A believed the things they said to be true (they don't have to prove them in a court of law) and they were truly the ones who sent the anonymous email, then I think even your tort for false information is going to have a hard time holding up.
And if you are covered under DOT driver laws, it is my understanding that the former employer is required to let the new employer know about your issues if they affect driving.