THE FEDERAL NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS THAT PROTECT YOU
Q: I am in recovery from substance abuse, but I still face discrimination because of my addiction history. Does any law protect me?
A: Yes. Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination in many areas of life against qualified individuals with disabilities. Many people with past and current alcohol problems and past drug use disorders, including those in treatment for these illnesses, are protected from discrimination by:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) and
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
[back to TOC]
WHO IS PROTECTED?
The non-discrimination laws discussed in this brochure protect individuals with a disability. Under these Federal laws, an individual with a disability is someone who
has a current physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of that persons major life activities, such as caring for ones self, working, etc.
has a record of such a substantially limiting impairment or
is regarded as having such an impairment.
Whether a particular person has a disability is decided on an individualized, case-by-case basis.
Substance use disorders (addiction) are recognized as impairments that can and do, for many individuals, substantially limit the individuals major life activities. For this reason, many courts have found that individuals experiencing or who are in recovery from these conditions are individuals with a disability protected by Federal law.
To be protected as an individual with a disability under Federal non-discrimination laws, a person must show that his or her addiction substantially limits (or limited, in the past) major life activities.
People wrongly believed to have a substance use disorder (in the past or currently) may also be protected as individuals regarded as having a disability.
[back to TOC]
WHO IS NOT PROTECTED?
People who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs are not protected under these non-discrimination laws, except that individuals may not be denied health services (including drug rehabilitation) based on their current illegal use of drugs if they are otherwise entitled to those services.
People whose use of alcohol or drugs poses a direct threata significant risk of substantial harmto the health or safety of others are not protected.
People whose use of alcohol or drugs does not significantly impair a major life activity are not protected (unless they show they have a record of or are regarded as having a substance use disorderaddictionthat is substantially limiting).
[back to TOC]
WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION?
Discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her disabilityfor example, just because he has a past drug addiction or she is in an alcohol treatment programmay be illegal discrimination. Discrimination means treating someone less favorably than someone else because he or she has, once had, or is regarded as having a disability.
Acting against a person for reasons other than having a disability is not generally illegal discrimination, even if the disability is related to the cause of the adverse action.
For instance, it is not likely to be ruled unlawful discrimination if someone in substance abuse treatment or in recovery is denied a job, services, or benefits because he
does not meet essential eligibility requirements
is unable to do the job
creates a direct threat to health or safety by his behavior, even if the behavior is caused by a substance use disorder
violates rules or commits a crime, including a drug or alcohol-related one, when that misconduct is cause for excluding or disciplining anyone doing it.
Since the basis for the negative action in these cases is not (or not solely) the persons disability, these actions do not violate Federal non-discrimination laws.
More about Rights
Kat does that include criminal offenses related to abuse? Just wondering I know the forgery charge is job related for me so I guess I will live with that one. An accountant with a forgery charge *sigh. I need to find a new direction. Just curious what your thoughts were on that.
BTW I found out I can get it expunged in 5 years. But that is 5 years from next month. *big sigh Sometimes lifes on lifes terms just sucks. At least I have that to look forward to and right now it is not a felony it is a misdemeanor. For whatever that is worth.
Jane :)
BTW I found out I can get it expunged in 5 years. But that is 5 years from next month. *big sigh Sometimes lifes on lifes terms just sucks. At least I have that to look forward to and right now it is not a felony it is a misdemeanor. For whatever that is worth.
Jane :)
Jane, the answer in no.
This needs to be clarified a little I think.
No, it doesn't protect you from not being hire because of a conviction, even if your conviction was directly related to a drug problem. The law sides with the employer that it puts the company at risk.
This does not protect you if they don't hire you because you were once an addict. It protects you from them asking if you were an ONCE addict, and if you answer "Yes", then THAT can't be the reason you were not hired. They will need another reason. Just as they can't ask you if you are married, they can't ask if you wer once addicted to drugs. You are in no way protected if you are in current addiction and using anything.
This does not protect you if you fail a drug test and use the excuse that you are an addict.
This does not protect you if you come into work intoxicated and use the excuse of addiction. They CAN fire you but usually won't. It will however, help you in getting assistance for treatment. Repeated offenses will or could result in your termination with no repercutions what so ever. They can't deny you medical assistance. They don't have to pay for it, but if the company offeres it and you are enrolled in their plan, they can't deny you.
While it's left to the court to decide what is a "disability", they typically will favor using the Social Security Administration's definition of disability, underwhich drug and alcohol addiction is NOT defined as a disability. The exception here is when the addiction is the result of treatment for an illness or injury that passes through the SSA's screening process (which is quite rigorous). Example: You broke your hand and was given Vicodin for the pain and became addicted. You hand healed in 6-8 weeks. You are not protected. Example:You developed colon cancer. Was given morphine for for the cancer, and have have been left disabled by the surgery but can manage some type work (called SGA) and are addicted to the morphine. They cannot NOT hire you because you are a morpine addict and have cancer, since they are related illnesses. The illness and addiction have to go hand in hand, it has to of resulted in a disability (NOT addiciton) and the addiciton was the result of treatment.
So, if you are an addict, and think your addiction will ensure employment, it will could under very very limited circumstances. And you better be pretty sick (non-drug releated) on top of it.
States have employment "at-will" laws that are meant to protect both the employer and employee. Unfortunately, as with many laws, it hurts some and helps some. Prospective employees are turned down each day because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender, their age, their Aunt is named Mable or they like to eat marshmellows. They just don't admit it in court. Any employer, after interviewing a number of people, can choose anyone they want out of the group (or give the job to the owners brother-in-law). And they can fire you for any reason (except for reasons protected by various anti-discrimination acts, which are not designed to protect drug addicts or convicts). Conversely, it also protects the employee, as you are free to apply for any job (if applications are being accepted), and more importantly, are free to terminate your employment with any employer, any time you choose, unless under specific contractual obligations. In that case, you don't stop your employment, You can stop the actual work however and then the employer can obviously tort you for breaking the contract and seek some kind of compensation.
The above information in no way protects you as a former addict and certainly in no way if you are a current addict. It protects you from them asking you.
This needs to be clarified a little I think.
No, it doesn't protect you from not being hire because of a conviction, even if your conviction was directly related to a drug problem. The law sides with the employer that it puts the company at risk.
This does not protect you if they don't hire you because you were once an addict. It protects you from them asking if you were an ONCE addict, and if you answer "Yes", then THAT can't be the reason you were not hired. They will need another reason. Just as they can't ask you if you are married, they can't ask if you wer once addicted to drugs. You are in no way protected if you are in current addiction and using anything.
This does not protect you if you fail a drug test and use the excuse that you are an addict.
This does not protect you if you come into work intoxicated and use the excuse of addiction. They CAN fire you but usually won't. It will however, help you in getting assistance for treatment. Repeated offenses will or could result in your termination with no repercutions what so ever. They can't deny you medical assistance. They don't have to pay for it, but if the company offeres it and you are enrolled in their plan, they can't deny you.
While it's left to the court to decide what is a "disability", they typically will favor using the Social Security Administration's definition of disability, underwhich drug and alcohol addiction is NOT defined as a disability. The exception here is when the addiction is the result of treatment for an illness or injury that passes through the SSA's screening process (which is quite rigorous). Example: You broke your hand and was given Vicodin for the pain and became addicted. You hand healed in 6-8 weeks. You are not protected. Example:You developed colon cancer. Was given morphine for for the cancer, and have have been left disabled by the surgery but can manage some type work (called SGA) and are addicted to the morphine. They cannot NOT hire you because you are a morpine addict and have cancer, since they are related illnesses. The illness and addiction have to go hand in hand, it has to of resulted in a disability (NOT addiciton) and the addiciton was the result of treatment.
So, if you are an addict, and think your addiction will ensure employment, it will could under very very limited circumstances. And you better be pretty sick (non-drug releated) on top of it.
States have employment "at-will" laws that are meant to protect both the employer and employee. Unfortunately, as with many laws, it hurts some and helps some. Prospective employees are turned down each day because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender, their age, their Aunt is named Mable or they like to eat marshmellows. They just don't admit it in court. Any employer, after interviewing a number of people, can choose anyone they want out of the group (or give the job to the owners brother-in-law). And they can fire you for any reason (except for reasons protected by various anti-discrimination acts, which are not designed to protect drug addicts or convicts). Conversely, it also protects the employee, as you are free to apply for any job (if applications are being accepted), and more importantly, are free to terminate your employment with any employer, any time you choose, unless under specific contractual obligations. In that case, you don't stop your employment, You can stop the actual work however and then the employer can obviously tort you for breaking the contract and seek some kind of compensation.
The above information in no way protects you as a former addict and certainly in no way if you are a current addict. It protects you from them asking you.
I have no idea, Jane. I just thought the site might help someone and I was bored at work.
LMAO- That's as good of reason as any. Thank you for the imput.
Jane
Danny- Good point.
Jane
Danny- Good point.
