May 24, 2012

“One-Strike-And-You’re-Out” Drug Testing Rule Deemed Lawful by U.S. Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a “one-strike-and-you’re-out” rule imposing a lifetime hiring ban on individuals who test positive for drug use does not run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Even if such a rule is unreasonable, the Court concluded, it does not violate the ADA.

The Pacific Maritime Association (the “Association”), whose members are west coast cargo carriers, terminal operators and stevedores in the longshore industry, had been sued by a job applicant who had alleged that the Association had intentionally discriminated against him based upon his status as a former drug addict, protected by the ADA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  He had tested positive for marijuana in 1997, completed rehabilitation from addiction to alcohol and other drugs in 2002 and reapplied for a longshoreman job with one of the Association’s members.

The Court found that the Association’s rule adversely affected individuals who at one time failed a drug test, not necessarily recovering or recovered addicts.  The Court then held that the ADA and the California statute “protect people who are recovering or who have recovered from a drug addiction; they do not protect people who are using illegal drugs when they apply for a job.” 

The Association and the Longshoremen’s Union had negotiated the rule after a series of serious accidents and fatalities in part attributed to a work culture that accepted the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol by workers on the job, according to the Court.  Nothing in the history of the rule led the Court to find that the Association had adopted the rule with a discriminatory purpose.

The Court also held the rule did not disparately impact recovering or recovered drug addicts, as compared with other individuals in the labor market without a history of addiction and rehabilitation or recovery.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is significant in that, at least in a safety-sensitive industry like that of longshoring, the Court has recognized that an employer has the right not to assume the risk that someone who once tested positive for employment-related illegal drug use will use again on the job and pose a hazard to himself/herself, other employees or the public.  The decision, however, also recognizes a fine and fuzzy line between lawful rules that discriminate based upon positive drug test results and unlawful rules that discriminate based upon a history of drug addiction.  It is not clear that other courts will find that “one-strike-and-you’re-out” rules do not disparately impact the protected class of individuals who are recovered or recovering addicts.  Employers, therefore, should not jump quickly to adopting such rules without understanding the continuing risk of doing so under the ADA and state disability discrimination laws.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Eric Hobbs is a partner whose practice focuses on labor and employment, with an emphasis on employment counseling and policy development, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation, wage and hour matters, clergy abuse and employment discrimination litigation. He also has experience in wage-hour, employment discrimination and multi-district class action cases.

Mr. Hobbs represents employers of all sizes in a variety of industries from service to heavy manufacturing. He has litigated before state and federal agencies and courts throughout the United States...

414-225-4991

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.