Author: hatmaker510
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:12 am
Actually, in certain cases, addiction/sub abuse is considered a disability.
This is from the link I posted above:
| Quote: |
| The ADA provides that any employee or job applicant who is “currently engaging� in the illegal use of drugs is not a “qualified individual with a disability.�[6] Therefore, an employee who illegally uses drugs—whether the employee is a casual user or an addict—is not protected by the ADA if the employer acts on the basis of the illegal drug use.[7] As a result, an employer does not violate the ADA by uniformly enforcing its rules prohibiting employees from illegally using drugs.[8] However, “qualified individuals� under the ADA include those individuals:
who have been successfully rehabilitated and who are no longer engaged in the illegal use of drugs;[9] who are currently participating in a rehabilitation program and are no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs;[10] and who are regarded, erroneously, as illegally using drugs. A former drug addict may be protected under the ADA because the addiction may be considered a substantially limiting impairment.[12] However, according to the EEOC Technical Assistance Manual on the ADA, a former casual drug user is not protected: [A] person who casually used drugs illegally in the past, but did not become addicted is not an individual with a disability based on the past drug use. In order for a person to be “substantially limited� because of drug use, s/he must be addicted to the drug. |
It just depends on if the person was addicted and is in a treatment program and is no longer using.
