A company decided to take back a conditional offer of employment after it found the applicant was a recovering drug addict. A lawsuit followed.

Here’s what happened: Donald Teaford applied for a job at Hussey Copper in Leetsdale, PA. Teaford was offered a production job at the plant which fabricated copper products. His offer was conditional. First, he needed to pass a physical and drug test conducted at an occupational medical facility, Heritage Valley Health System. All production jobs at Hussey were considered safety-sensitive positions.

During his physical, Teaford didn’t tell the nurse that he was being treated by a doctor at a clinic for dependency on opiates, including Oxycodone, and that he had been prescribed and taking methadone, a drug used to prevent withdrawal symptoms in patients who were addicted to opiates.

His urine tested positive for methadone.

Dr. Daniel Nackley, the Medical Director at Heritage Valley, contacted Teaford, who then said he was under treatment and taking methadone. Nackley received a letter confirming Teaford’s treatment and methadone prescription.

Nackley tried to contact the doctor who prescribed the methadone but wasn’t able to do so.

Hussey’s human resources department looked into possible accommodations for Teaford. However, Hussey’s head of safety said all the production jobs were safety sensitive and an accommodation wouldn’t be possible.

Based on the information he had, Dr. Nackley recommended Hussey should not perform safety-sensitive work.

Hussey’s safety manager decided that Teaford’s offer had to be rescinded because he wasn’t medically cleared to perform safety-sensitive work.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit, alleging that Hussey discriminated against Teaford because he was a recovering addict in a supervised rehab program when it withdrew the conditional offer of employment. It seeks damages and back pay for Teaford.

The EEOC argues that Hussey failed to conduct an individualized assessment of Teaford, as is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Hussey filed a motion to get the case thrown out, claiming that the Teaford’s physical and drug test, along with the analysis from Dr. Nackley, was an individual assessment. It also argued that hiring Teaford would have posed a high probability of substantial harm to himself or others.

The court’s decision: It would not throw out the lawsuit. It will now either have to go to trial or be settled out of court.

The court noted Dr. Nackley acknowledged that every situation involving opiate use is unique, and that a neurological exam was available to make an individual assessment. But a neurological exam wasn’t performed on Teaford.

For that reason, the court said Hussey didn’t conduct the required individual assessment on Teaford.

The take-away for companies: You can set qualifications for safety-sensitive jobs. However, medical professionals have to perform their due diligence to disqualify applicants from a job.

Cite: EEOC v. Hussey Copper, U.S. District court, W.D. PA, No. 08-809, 3/12/10.

Kenya Madden was hired as a police dispatcher for Hillsboro, IL. During her training period, she told her supervisor she had narcolepsy.

Among the follow-up questions the supervisor didn’t ask Madden:

• What has your experience been with the condition?
• When was the last time you had an episode?
• Does medication control the condition for you?

Madden was fired. She filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging discrimination based upon the perception of a disability.

Hillsboro settled the lawsuit out of court, agreeing to pay Madden $10,001. The municipality admits no fault.

Before the settlement, the town’s police chief told the Chicago Tribune that this was a clear public safety issue, and he was unwilling to risk Madden falling asleep during an emergency call. She would have been alone at many times.

Is this a clear-cut case because of the potential risks? Or are there gray areas because Madden’s condition was under control with medication? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Madden v. Village of Hillside, (PDF).

City of Detroit employee Susan McBride filed her lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She claimed the city failed to reasonably accommodate her allergy after she complained that a co-worker’s perfume made it difficult for her to breathe.

The city argued the perfume allergy didn’t qualify as a “major life activity” under the ADA.

But a judge disagreed, saying that breathing qualifies as a major life activity.

Under a settlement reached with McBride, the city will have to post notices in buildings where McBride works, asking other city employees not to wear scents at work.

The notice will contain this language: “To accommodate employees who are medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented products, the city of Detroit requests that you refrain from wearing scented products, including but not limited to colognes, after-shave, lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions, hair sprays or similar products.”

No scented deodorants? That could be problematic.

But one company has decided to turn that potential problem into an opportunity.

The makers of unscented Crystal deodorant recently distributed free samples of their product to City of Detroit employees.

Crystal Vice President Larry Friedberg notes, “If people can’t wear deodorant, there’s going to be body odor at work.”

Friedberg says Crystal is made from natural salt, without scents.

Getting back to the case, here are some questions: Wouldn’t it have been easier — and less expensive — for the City of Detroit to have asked McBride’s co-worker not to wear perfume? What do you think about workplace scent bans for health reasons? You can share your comments below.

Martin Onken was a welder for McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing in Iowa. He has Type I diabetes which causes him to have occasional low blood sugar episodes – hypoglycemia.

Onken is among a small percentage of diabetics who are often unable to detect their low blood sugar from physical symptoms.

He suffered several low-blood sugar episodes at work. Co-workers would offer him a soda, candy bar or tube of glucose to bring his blood sugar back up. The company worked with Onken through several episodes and encouraged him to seek medical help to better control his condition, which he did.

However, one hypoglycemic episode in particular proved to be the last straw.

During this episode, some of Onken’s co-workers saw him staggering near his work station.

One co-worker, who was also a paramedic, approached him. Onken lifted his arm into a position that implied he was going to hit his co-worker, laughed and said, “You scared?”

When the plant supervisor approached him, Onken held his left arm back as if he was going to hit the supervisor. Onken lowered his arm, and the supervisor suggested he go to the break room. Onken cursed at the supervisor and said he wasn’t going anywhere.

Then Onken locked himself in a restroom and refused to come out. He came out of the restroom after 25 minutes.

When the co-worker who was a paramedic offered Onken a tube with glucose to bring his blood sugar back up, he knocked it out of her hand. Paramedics took Onken to the hospital.

In his report about the episode, the supervisor wrote that this time he knew those around Onken were at risk.

A doctor evaluated Onken. The doctor wrote Onken “would not be a risk to himself or others if he was able to manage his underlying medical condition without having hypoglycemic episodes. He appears to be unable to appropriately determine when he is becoming hypoglycemic and to take appropriate action.”

Based on the doctor’s report, and the company’s own observance of Onken, they fired him.

Onken sued, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The court’s ruling: The company had a valid safety reason to fire Onken. The judges wrote that, since Onken presented a direct threat to the safety of others at the plant, he wasn’t a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For more information on accommodating employees with diabetes, click here.

Cite: Onken v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc., U.S. District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division, No. 08-CV-2003-LRR, 7/10/09.

A diabetic employee can’t control his hypoglycemic episodes. In recent episodes, he’s become disoriented around dangerous equipment and threatened violence against co-workers. Can you fire him for safety reasons, or is he protected under disability law?

Martin Onken was a welder for McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing in Iowa. He has Type I diabetes which causes him to have occasional low blood sugar episodes – hypoglycemia.

Onken is among a small percentage of diabetics who are often unable to detect their low blood sugar from physical symptoms.

He suffered several low-blood sugar episodes at work. Co-workers would offer him a soda, candy bar or tube of glucose to bring his blood sugar back up. The company worked with Onken through several episodes and encouraged him to seek medical help to better control his condition, which he did.

However, one hypoglycemic episode in particular proved to be the last straw.

During this episode, some of Onken’s co-workers saw him staggering near his work station.

One co-worker, who was also a paramedic, approached him. Onken lifted his arm into a position that implied he was going to hit his co-worker, laughed and said, “You scared?”

When the plant supervisor approached him, Onken held his left arm back as if he was going to hit the supervisor. Onken lowered his arm, and the supervisor suggested he go to the break room. Onken cursed at the supervisor and said he wasn’t going anywhere.

Then Onken locked himself in a restroom and refused to come out. He came out of the restroom after 25 minutes.

When the co-worker who was a paramedic offered Onken a tube with glucose to bring his blood sugar back up, he knocked it out of her hand. Paramedics took Onken to the hospital.

In his report about the episode, the supervisor wrote that this time he knew those around Onken were at risk.

A doctor evaluated Onken. The doctor wrote Onken “would not be a risk to himself or others if he was able to manage his underlying medical condition without having hypoglycemic episodes. He appears to be unable to appropriately determine when he is becoming hypoglycemic and to take appropriate action.”

Based on the doctor’s report, and the company’s own observance of Onken, they fired him.

Onken sued, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The court’s ruling: The company had a valid safety reason to fire Onken. The judges wrote that, since Onken presented a direct threat to the safety of others at the plant, he wasn’t a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For more information on accommodating employees with diabetes, click here.

Cite: Onken v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc., U.S. District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division, No. 08-CV-2003-LRR, 7/10/09.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had sued J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., claiming that the rights of applicants for over-the-road (OTR) truck driving jobs had been violated.

Hunt chose not to hire OTR applicants taking certain prescription medications with side effects that could impair driving.

The trucking company argued that the large vehicle size and the extreme driving conditions faced by its OTR drivers warranted extra safety precautions.

Hunt cited Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations that allow an operator to require and enforce “more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation and employee safety and health.”

The two-judge majority on the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the EEOC, saying the applicants lost their jobs because of the medications they took, not because of any real or perceived disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

To find that the applicants were regarded as disabled, the EEOC had to show that Hunt perceived the rejected applicants as limited from a class or a broad range of jobs.

The two-judge majority found that OTR driving didn’t qualify as a class or broad range of jobs.

But Judge Sotomayor found that the EEOC has shown Hunt believed the rejected applicants were unfit to drive any truck — which qualified as a broad range of jobs.

Had one of the other two judges agreed with her position, Hunt would have been found in violation of the ADA.

If that were the case, Hunt would not have been allowed to set higher safety standards for its OTR drivers than required by the DOT.

The majority ruling in the Hunt case and Sotomayor’s dissent are online here.

What do you think about this case and Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Tacoma Goodwill will pay $13,300 for three violations in the death of 27-year-old Nick Miller. The violations are related to the implementation of its accident prevention program, recordkeeping and the safety features of its box tipping machines.

The company was originally hit with nine violations for a total potential fine of $50,000.

A year ago, Miller was crushed under a hydraulic tipper on Goodwill’s loading dock.

Immediately after the accident, Goodwill made voluntary safety improvements, including placement of lock-out devices on its tipper machines.

There was some confusion over whether Miller, who had the cognitive abilities of a 10-year-old, was authorized to operate the tipper, according to The News Tribune.

Some told officials Miller wasn’t authorized, but others said he was, a statement that was backed up by training records which said it was part of his regular duties.

Blanket policies barring employees on light or limited duty from working overtime violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That’s the upshot of a case involving United Airlines. In a consent decree filed in federal court, the company has agreed to pay $850,000 to settle an EEOC disability-discrimination lawsuit.

From 1998 to 2003, the airline had a policy that denied overtime work to employees who were on light or limited duty.

Samuel Chetcuti, a United employee at the San Francisco airport, filed a claim against the company.

Chetcuti has epilepsy and was under medical restrictions that prevented him from operating heavy machinery or working “at heights.”

United considered Chetcuti on light duty. He was medically cleared to work overtime, but United’s policy prevented him from doing so.

A consent decree between United and the EEOC states that the airline “shall not discriminate against United employees at San Francisco International Airport on the basis of disability regarding eligibility for overtime.” United ended the overtime restriction in 2003.

EEOC attorney William Tamayo said United’s former overtime policy ran “counter to the ADA’s goal that each employee be evaluated individually on whether they can get the job done, with or without an accommodation.”

One of the best ways to reduce workers’ comp costs is to have a light-duty program already in place for injured or disabled workers.

Does your company have a light-duty program in place for employees who are injured or who are diagnosed with a medical condition? Let us know about it in the Comments Box below.