NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
Bryan Shirley worked for Wman-Gordon Forgings, L.P. (“W-G”) as an operator of the largest extrusion press in the world. Company policy required that any employee who should develop a problem with drugs or alcohol may confidentially inform the HR manager in order to pursue treatment. Failure to comply with treatment could subject the employee to discharge.
Shirley suffered a near overdose in November 2009. He requested a medical leave to be treated for his addiction. He entered a program in Houston, Texas, involving two steps: first, cleansing the body of drugs, and second, undergoing treatment to curb the need for the drug.
Shirley completed the detox portion of the program on December 5, 2009. Against the recommendation of his treating doctor, Shirley sought to be discharged before completing the second portion of the program. He saw his physician who gave him a return-to-work note on December 9, 2009. The HR representative informed Shirley that his early departure from the program was grounds for termination under the company’s drug-free workplace policy. The company allowed Shirley to reenter the program to complete the second phase.
After the second admission to the program, Shirley tested positive for hydrocodone on readmission. He admitted to taking Vicodin following his initial discharge. After only one day of detox, he checked himself out again. A few days later the company fired Shirley for twice failing to complete the program. Shirley sued under the ADA and argued that as he should be protected from job termination because he was participating in a rehabilitation program.
The district court ruled against Shirley, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The court noted that current users of illegal drugs are not protected by the ADA. It said that someone who had used illegal drugs in the weeks or even months preceding the adverse employment action may be considered a current user of illegal drugs.
Shirley argued that he was participating in a supervised rehab program and was no longer engaging in illegal drug use when he was fired. The court said that the mere fact that he was in a program did not mean he was automatically protected under the ADA. The court said that a significant period of recovery is needed for an employee to be protected under the ADA.
As the district court noted, Shirley’s refusal to complete an inpatient treatment program, his insistence that he remain on an opiate pain reliever, and his continued use of Vicodin following detox ‘supported a reasonable belief that continued drug use was still an on-going problem at the time W-G terminated his employment.’
This case may be found at Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., Wyman-Gordon Forgings,L.P., 726 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. August 12, 2013).