Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...

If the individual is qualified and determined to be disabled by alcoholism, then the employer
may not discriminate against the individual on the basis of his or her disability, and if job
performance and behavior are not affected by alcoholism, the employer must make “reasonable
accommodations” to the individual’s known physical or mental limitations, unless the employer
can demonstrate that doing so would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business.
The selection of an appropriate “reasonable accommodation” is done on a case-by-case basis,
as EEOC guidance provides (see 56 FR 35744, July 26, 1991). Reasonable accommodation for
an individual disabled by alcoholism could include such actions as referral to an Employee
Assistance Program or other rehabilitation program, provision of rehabilitation services, and
giving an employee sufficient time to demonstrate that rehabilitation has been successful. See,
e.g., Washington v. Department of Navy, 30 M.S.P.R. 323 (1986); Swafford v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, 18 M.S.P.R. 481 (1983).
Even when an individual is disabled by alcoholism, however, the employer is not required to
provide a reasonable accommodation that creates an “undue hardship.” Undue hardship involves
significant difficulty or expense in, or resulting from, providing an accommodation. EEOC
describes an undue hardship as “an accommodation that would be unduly costly, extensive,
substantial, or disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the
business” (Id). This concept takes into account the financial resources of the employer (e.g., an
accommodation that would be reasonable for a large business may be an undue hardship for a
small business). But the concept is not limited to financial difficulty. For example, if a small
trucking company determined that the accommodation that one of its drivers needed for an
alcoholism-related disability was lengthy in-patient rehabilitation, the company might not only
find the accommodation beyond its financial resources, but also too disruptive of its operations
(i.e., a temporary replacement would have to be hired or the work of the firm be reduced
significantly).
Under Title I, an employer may hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or
who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment, job performance, and
behavior as it holds other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is
related to the drug use or alcoholism of the employee (§104(c)(4)). For example, if as the result
of alcoholism, an employee is chronically late or absent, or makes frequent job errors, the
employee would be subject to personnel action on the same basis as any other employee who
exhibited similar behavior for other reasons. (However, if the alcoholic employee were
subjected to personnel actions that were not used against non-alcoholic employees who were
chronically late or absent, or made frequent job errors, then the alcoholic employee might have a
cause of action under the ADA.) The employer is not precluded from accommodating this
alcoholic employee, but is not required to do so.
It should also be pointed out that the ADA does not preclude an employer from disciplining
or dismissing an employee who commits a violation of the employer’s conduct and performance
standards, even if the individual is an alcoholic or has another disability. For example, a
violation of a DOT operating administration’s alcohol misuse rules (e.g., a test demonstrating a
prohibited alcohol concentration) could be a violation of the employer’s performance and
Appendix C. ADA Discussion C-4 August 2002