An insurance company in Raleigh, North Carolina, is being sued by an applicant that they chose not to hire. The man took a drug test that came up positive for methadone. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believes that insurer has violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Craig Burns applied for a job as an insurance agent at the United Insurance Company of America in 2009. He was hired “conditionally” in January of 2010. The “condition” was based on the outcome of a drug test that the insurance company required him to take.
When the test came back, the results showed that Craig Burns had tested positive for methadone. United Insurance Company of America decided that this was enough reason to withdraw their job offer. Craig Burns no longer had a job as an insurance agent.
There was a very good reason why he had methadone in his system. He is a recovering drug addict. He started a supervised treatment program for his addiction in 2004, and has been enrolled ever since. Methadone is a drug that is often used in drug detox programs as a form of treatment for addictions to heroin, or other opiates.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is now suing United Insurance Company of America, on behalf of Craig Burns. The EEOC says that the insurer violated the Americans With Disabilities Act when they rescinded the job offer to Craig Burns. This is because the ADA includes “recovering addictions” as disabilities. The EEOC says that Craig Burns “has an impairment that requires him to take the methadone”.
The EEOC, (and Craig Burns), are seeking back pay, lost income, and damages from United Insurance Company of America. This case has a precedent. In the past, the EEOC sued a factory in Pennsylvania that offered a job to a production laborer, but then withdrew that offer when the laborer’s drug test came back positive for methadone. This was a case that the EEOC won. It resulted in an $85,000 settlement.
Personally, I can see both sides of this issue. It seems as though Craig Burns had a problem with drugs in the past, but is now doing the right thing by staying in a supervised treatment program. It feels wrong to fire him based on the drug that the treatment program requires him to take. On the other hand, I realize that there are people who would feel uncomfortable working in an office with a person who used to have a problem with drugs. It will be interesting to see how this court case is resolved.
Image by Michael Velardo on Flickr