Skip to main content

Showing Up to Work Drunk off Mike's Hard Lemonade & Then Fired? No ADA Violation Here


Ortiz v. Board of Education of City of Chicago - US District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division


Facts:  David Ortiz was discharged from his job at a public school because he reported to work under the influence of alcohol.  By way of background, Ortiz was diagnosed with recurrent major depressive disorder.  However, he was apparently a satisfactory employee, although he may have taken mediation during his tenure with the school.  After expressing suicidal thoughts and being hospitalized and not coming to work between March 9, 2010 and April 1, 2010, Ortiz reported to work on Monday, April 5, 2010.  When Ortiz reported to work, he was "carrying one empty and three full cans of Mike's Hard Lemonade, along with raw meat."  The principal at the school had a breath alcohol test done on Ortiz which revealed a blood alcohol level of .198; fifteen minutes later Ortiz's level was .203.  After a dismissal hearing, the Board terminated Ortiz in July 2010 for possessing alcohol at school and being under the influence. 

Ortiz brought suit against the Board of Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and claims the Board failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.  

Holding:  The District Court noted that the ADA makes it unlawful to "discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, conditions, and privileges of employment".  Included in the ADA's definition of discrimination is failing to provide reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations.

For Ortiz to prevail upon his failure to accommodate claim, he had to show that (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the employer was aware of the disability, and (3) the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.  A "qualified individual with a disability" is an "individual with a disability who with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires."  In this case, Ortiz was not a qualified individual with a disability as a violation of a workplace rule, even if caused by a disability, is no defense to discipline up to and including termination.  Consequently, the Court held that reporting to work in possession and under the influence of alcohol renders that employee unqualified under the ADA. 

Judgment:  The District Court judge granted the Board's motion for summary judgment and held that Ortiz failed to prove the basic elements of his ADA claim by failing to show he was a qualified individual.

The Takeaway:  This is a relatively straight forward ruling; showing up to work intoxicated and unable to perform job functions is a terminable offense (in most offices) and therefore not a violation of the ADA.  Employees should take care to ensure that although they are mainly free to do whatever they please on their own time, care needs to be taken to ensure that when it is time to work, they are of sound mind and able to perform the essential functions of employment.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Marovich

Date:  July 14, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/234177603/Ortiz-v-Board-of-Ed-City-of-Chicago


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more