Mauerhan v. Wagner Corp. - 649 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2011)

Rule:

Mere participation in a rehabilitation program is not enough to trigger the protections of 42 U.S.C.S. § 12114(b)(2). The safe harbor provision does not permit persons to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act's, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12112 et seq., protection simply by showing that they are participating in a drug treatment program. Rather, refraining from illegal use of drugs is also essential. Employers are entitled to seek reasonable assurances that no illegal use of drugs is occurring or has occurred recently enough so that continuing use is a real and ongoing problem. Thus, although participating in or completing a drug treatment program will bring an individual closer to qualifying for the safe harbor, an individual must also be no longer engaging in drug use for a sufficient period of time that the drug use is no longer an ongoing problem.

Facts:

Plaintiff Peter Karl Mauerhan worked as a sales representative for Wagner Corporation. In 2004, plaintiff voluntarily entered into an outpatient drug rehabilitation program. In 2005, Wagner asked the plaintiff to take a drug test. Plaintiff admitted that he would test positive for drugs, but also submitted to the test. He was fired that day for violating Wagner's drug policy, but was told by one of his superiors that he could return to Wagner if he could get clean. Subsequently, plaintiff entered an inpatient drug rehabilitation program, which he completed in August 2005. A report issued by the rehabilitation counselor described plaintiff’s recovery prognosis at discharge as “guarded.” The day after he completed the program, plaintiff contacted Wagner and asked to return to work. Plaintiff was told that he could return to work, but that he would not receive the same level of compensation as he had previously received or be able to service the same accounts he had prior to his discharge. Plaintiff refused to accept the new terms and declined Wagner’s offer. Subsequently, plaintiff brought suit against Wagner, alleging that the latter violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq., by discriminating against him because of his drug addiction. The district court granted Wagner's motion for summary judgment. According to the district court, plaintiff was unprotected by the statute because he was a “current” drug user at the time he sought reemployment. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the plaintiff invoke the safe harbor provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12114(b)? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the employer. According to the court, although participating in or completing a drug treatment program would bring an individual closer to qualifying for the safe harbor provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12114(b), an individual had to also be no longer engaging in drug use for a sufficient period of time that the drug use was no longer an ongoing problem. In this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff's recovery status was "guarded" and at least ninety days of recovery was necessary to ensure significant improvement in his condition. The plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that more time was required for him to reach a stable state in his recovery. The plaintiff did not provide evidence from which a fact-finder could have inferred that, at the time he applied to return to work, it was unreasonable to believe his drug addiction was sufficiently recent that he might have an ongoing problem. The plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute regarding whether he was currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs within the meaning of the ADA at the time he asked to be rehired.