Call The Right Attorney™
No Fee Guarantee

Court Ordered AA Treatment May Or May Not Be Considered ADA Accommodation

by | Jul 28, 2023 | Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Employment Law, Federal Law Update, Wrongful Termination |

In Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P., Clint Mueck, an operator at the Fashing gas plant in Texas, struggled with alcoholism. Although his alcohol consumption did not hinder his work performance, it led to legal consequences, including multiple alcohol-related citations and a third Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) charge while he was under probation for a previous DWI. As part of his legal proceedings, the court ordered Mueck to attend the 81st District Court Substance Abuse Intensive Outpatient Program. Mueck sought to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings and counseling to address his addiction. However, this required him to leave early on certain day shifts and arrive late for several night shifts. Mueck informed his employer, La Grange, about the court-ordered classes and the potential scheduling conflict with his work shifts. La Grange was willing to facilitate voluntary shift swaps but was unable to find coverage for Mueck’s night shifts. As a result, La Grange suspended Mueck and later terminated his employment, citing the conflict between the substance-abuse classes and his shift schedule.

Mueck sued La Grange under Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), claiming disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation in the form of wrongful termination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Grange, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the basis that Mueck had not adequately requested an accommodation under the ADA.

Let’s take a closer look at the legal issues presented in this case.

What qualifies as a disability under the ADA?

The ADA defines “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual. To meet the ADA’s requirements, an individual must demonstrate that the impairment significantly restricts a major life activity.

Best Disability Discrimination at Work Law Firm Blogs on Point:

Can episodic conditions qualify as disabilities under the ADA?

Yes, thanks to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), episodic conditions are explicitly recognized as potential disabilities if they substantially limit major life activities when active. This includes mental health conditions like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, where individuals may experience flare-ups.

Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

Is alcoholism considered a disability under the ADA?

Yes, alcoholism is considered a disability under the ADA. The law recognizes alcoholism as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities. However, the ADA also includes a specific provision addressing current alcoholics. The ADA states that an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, including alcohol, is not considered a qualified individual with a disability. This means that an active alcoholic who is still engaging in the consumption of alcohol may not be protected under the ADA. Nevertheless, individuals who have completed or are in the process of completing a rehabilitation program and are no longer engaging in the illegal use of alcohol are entitled to the ADA’s protections.

Best Alcoholism Discrimination Law Firm Blogs on Point:

What accommodations can employees get under the ADA for alcoholism?

Employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, including those with alcoholism. Some common accommodations for employees facing alcohol addiction include flexible work schedules to attend AA meetings, providing time off for treatment or counseling, or granting temporary disability leave to seek professional help.

The ADA defines a reasonable accommodation as any modification or adjustment to a job, the work environment, or the application process that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job. The purpose of a reasonable accommodation is to level the playing field for individuals with disabilities, allowing them to have equal employment opportunities and access to the benefits and privileges of employment.

The ADA emphasizes that reasonable accommodations should be provided on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific needs and limitations of the individual with a disability. Employers are required to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate accommodation. This process involves open communication between the employer and the employee to identify and implement effective accommodations that address the limitations caused by the disability.

Furthermore, employers are not required to provide accommodations that would cause undue hardship to their business operations. An undue hardship refers to significant difficulty or expense for the employer. The determination of undue hardship depends on factors such as the nature and cost of the accommodation, the overall financial resources of the employer, and the size and nature of the business.

Best ADA Attorney Blogs on Point:

Is there a difference between voluntarily treatment for alcoholism and court-ordered treatment?

Our employment disability lawyers do not think so, because regardless of the cause for initiating the treatment, the employee is getting treatment to address the disability. Unfortunately, sometimes court will get it wrong in our view. And, in Mueck, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did hold differently. According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Mueck, court-ordered treatment may not necessarily be considered an ADA accommodation. The court reasoned that Mueck’s discussions with his supervisor were primarily centered around addressing his legal situation rather than explicitly requesting accommodation for his alcoholism. Therefore, Mueck’s employer, La Grange, was not aware that his request for time off was related to his disability. Specifically, the Court held:

The facts presented here, however, do not show that La Grange was informed by Mueck that his request for time off was for a disability. Rather, La Grange reasonably viewed his request as one for time off to deal with the legal consequences of his most recent DWI. Here, both of Mueck’s discussions with Pawelek were set up to discuss his DWI and the associated court case. Indeed, the second meeting on May 17, 2019, specifically concerned the conditions of his probation. And these conditions included not just Mueck’s court-ordered participation in the substance abuse program, but also breathalyzer requirements that posed a possible interference with his work. This context matters. Mueck referred to his struggles with drinking only when discussing how criminal sanctions traceable to his drinking would impact his work. Indeed, Mueck himself confirmed that he had always met his work obligations, despite his alcoholism. We do not think it reasonable, on these facts, to expect an employer to view Mueck’s statements as him claiming to have a disability which required accommodation.

Moreover, Mueck would have needed to request time off regardless of whether he had a disability. Mueck maintains that the court-ordered nature of the substance abuse classes has no impact on the analysis, suggesting that, because the court-ordered counseling was intended to treat his underlying disability, any request for time off to attend must be understood as a requested accommodation. But we cannot disregard the circumstances surrounding an employee’s alleged request for accommodation when determining whether an employee made the requisite request. Here, no reasonable juror could have found that Mueck, by notifying La Grange that his court-ordered classes would conflict with his shift schedule and informing his supervisors that he was attempting to resolve this conflict by finding coverage, was requesting an accommodation for his disability of alcoholism.

We emphasize that this is not to say that Mueck’s alcoholism is not a disability—we have already discussed, in detail, why Mueck has raised a triable issue of fact as to that matter. Instead, we find only that Mueck has not shown that he made his employer aware that his alcoholism was the reason why he was requesting accommodation.

This quote from the court highlights the importance of clearly communicating the need for an accommodation related to alcoholism. Mere mention of court-ordered counseling may not be sufficient to trigger the ADA’s protections. Had Mueck’s request for time off been framed as a request for accommodation due to his alcoholism, the outcome might have been different. Seeking the assistance of an employment attorney can be invaluable in ensuring that requests for accommodations are appropriately framed and that employees’ rights are protected under the ADA.

Because Mueck was not entitled to an ADA protected accommodation, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further rationalized that his absences were not excused, giving the employer a legitimate business reason to terminate Mueck’s employment. As such, he also lost his wrongful termination claim.

Best Lawyer for Disability Accommodation Blogs on Point:

What should I do if I was fired for requesting time off to attend AA to address my alcoholism?

The case of Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P. serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication when requesting accommodations for disabilities in the workplace. If you find yourself facing difficulties at work due to alcoholism or any other disability, seeking the guidance of an experienced employment attorney can be crucial. An employment attorney can help craft your request for accommodation under the ADA, ensuring that your rights are protected and your needs are adequately addressed.

At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, our employment discrimination lawyers understand the complexities of employment law and strive to provide the best representation for individuals facing discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace. Please remember that the information provided in this blog is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for legal advice and it would be best to call the right attorney to schedule a free and confidential consultation. (Read: What is the Spitz No Fee Guarantee?). Call our top employment lawyers in Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Kentucky to get help now.

Best Employee’s Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:

Disclaimer: This employment law website is an advertisement. The materials available on this page and the employment law website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Use and access to this employment law website or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship for your employment law needs. The legal opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual lawyer and may not reflect the opinions of The Spitz Law Firm, Brian Spitz, or any individual attorney.

"" "