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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more