Former Substance Abuser’s ADA Case Survives…For Now.

January 2025

Gabriel J. Kahn

The Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s ADA claim in McBride v. Axium Foods, Inc., 2024 WL 4802566. Plaintiff, a former heroin substance abuser, applied for a position as a Corn Chip Process Operator with Axium Foods. The job description detailed several essential functions including standing, crouching, crawling, and having specific vision abilities. Plaintiff received an employment offer from Axium contingent on him passing a drug screening and physical examination. Plaintiff was a recovering substance abuser who receives daily doses of methadone from an out-patient clinic to help alleviate his cravings for heroin.

Plaintiff’s urine was tested and did not reveal any heroin, methadone, or other drugs. A doctor also conducted a physical examination of Plaintiff which provided a contradictory evaluation. The report concluded that Plaintiff could perform the essential job functions “without limitations.” However, the doctor also noted that Plaintiff was not cleared to perform “safety sensitive positions i.e. work at heights.” It is unknown what is meant by “safety sensitive,” nor does the job description note that it requires employees to “work at heights.”

Following the drug screening and physical examination, Plaintiff visited Axium’s facility and interacted with its human resources manager. Plaintiff and Defendant’s description of that interaction and Plaintiff’s visit differ significantly. According to Plaintiff, during the visit he disclosed his past addiction and current methadone treatments. Plaintiff asserts that in response to that disclosure, Axium’s HR manager told him that he could not work at the facility while using methadone, rescinded the employment offer, and ceased contact with Plaintiff.

Axium contended that following Plaintiff’s disclosure during his visit, it relied on the doctor’s conclusion that he could not work a safety sensitive job and his own conclusion that methadone use would hinder Plaintiff’s ability to focus. Notably, Axium claimed that it did not withdraw the employment offer, and that it instead told Plaintiff that Axium would need to offer Plaintiff another job with different job duties but the same pay and hours. Axium also asserted that it offered that Plaintiff take the fitness for duty examination to approve him to “work at heights.” According to Axium, Plaintiff became belligerent and stormed out of the facility.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in May 2021, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As Judge Pallmeyer put it, Axium “moved for summary judgment on the narrow basis that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence that he was qualified to perform the ‘essential functions’ of the job he applied for, under the meaning of the ADA.” The court determined that Plaintiff met his burden to present evidence that he was able to satisfactorily perform the job functions. The court further concluded that doctor’s evaluation that Plaintiff could perform the job duties without limitations and Plaintiff’s own testimony regarding his physical capabilities were sufficient evidence to create a question of as to whether Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions.

In a footnote, Judge Pallmeyer did note that the Plaintiff is not necessarily considered to be disabled under the ADA, which is a crucial element needed to prevail on an ADA claim. Plaintiff would still need to prove that he has an impairment that limits a major life activity. Indeed, participation in a supervised rehabilitation program does not automatically make that individual a qualified individual with a disability. The court then cited to Quigley v. Austeel Lemont Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 941, 947 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (“Because [plaintiff] admits that his drug use did not impact his work, [he] has failed to establish that his alleged disability substantially limits the major life activity of work.”).

What lessons can employers take away from this case? Document, document, document, and then document some more. Clear documentation, especially when evaluating disabilities or reasonable accommodations, is crucial to prevent confusion and disputes between employers and employees. For example, this case survived summary judgment in large part because of the two differing factual accounts of what happened during Plaintiff’s visit to the Axium facility. Perhaps documentation regarding their conversation and having another Axium employee present for those discussions would prove to be beneficial. It is acceptable for the employer to pause the conversation if the employee or applicant discloses a disability or something that the employer is not well versed in – like methadone treatments. It is important to take your time, gather all the facts available, and engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine if an accommodation is needed and to agree with the employee on a reasonable accommodation.

If a situation like this arises, document the situation, and ask another manager to be present for the conversation. Any finalized reasonable accommodations should also be in writing, signed by the employee and manager/HR, and then placed in the employee’s personnel file. Employee disabilities and impairments that affect work duties are common and complex. A situation that appears to be under control can turn quickly against the employer. If you or your company need assistance in navigating these situations, feel free to contact us to discuss your options.