U.S. Steel Corp. did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated a utility technician for a “non-negative” drug test result following an altercation with a co-worker, a Pennsylvania district court judge determined March 28.
After the test, a security employee informed the worker that he would need to inspect his locker and car. The technician called his wife and asked her to move the car. He then “left the premises without permission,” according to the company.
After reviewing the drug test results, tape of the car being moved, an audio recording of the altercation and written reports of other issues, a labor relations representative determined the worker should be fired.
The technician alleged the company discriminated against him because he informed a union representative and the nurse administering the drug test that he would likely test positive for THC. The worker held a valid medical prescription for marijuana, which he used to treat an anxiety disorder, mild recurrent depression and bipolar disorder, according to court documents.
The worker was suspended for five days following the test, during which time he allegedly received a call from a doctor requesting information to validate the authenticity of the worker’s medical marijuana license, which he provided.
Although he was cleared to work, the plaintiff was then placed on suspension again for “leaving company property without permission” and “failure to comply with security instruction.” It was during this time that the labor relations representative made the decision to fire him after reviewing the documents.
Claim doomed by lack of accommodation request
U.S. Steel did not discriminate against the worker because the person who made the decision to fire him was not aware of his disabilities, the judge found.
The judge found that while the worker did have qualifying disabilities and the ability to perform essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, the company was unaware of his medical conditions at the time the adverse action — his firing — was taken.
To prevail at trial, the judge said, the worker would have needed to make his disabilities known and requested reasonable accommodations. “An accommodation request must be made ‘on the job,’ not after the fact,” the judge stated.
How courts navigate a drug test disability claim
Companies often prevail on ADA claims relating to drug tests when they can show the adverse employment actions were related to the worker’s actions following the test, rather than the test itself.
Recently, for example, Chicago’s Metra commuter rail service was able to secure summary judgment from a court after it showed a worker’s firing was due to his failure to respond to a medical review officer after positive test results — not the results themselves.
On the other hand, workers who promptly provide documentation regarding a disability related to test results are often protected under the ADA. In 2022, for example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against International Paper Co. when the company revoked a conditional job offer after the applicant tested positive for amphetamines — despite the applicant contacting the company twice to provide his physician’s phone number. International Paper Co. agreed to settle that lawsuit for $65,000 later that year.
