A cautionary tale.
In a decision issued this week, a federal judge in Greensboro, North Carolina, ruled that an employer's policy requiring employees to disclose their legal prescription medications may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Loflin Fabrication, LLC, is a metal fabrication shop not far from me. Like all metal fabrication shops, it is not a place where you would want to be under the influence of anything -- legal or illegal. In addition to having random testing for illegal drugs, the company requires employees to disclose any legal prescription medications they may be taking. At least, I think that's what they require.
In 2017, the company adopted a written drug policy, including this provision on the disclosure of legal medications:
. . . you must:
TURN prescriptions in to HR so they can be on file before you start work. Any employee taking prescribed medications will be responsible for consulting the prescribing physician, pharmacist, or the warning labels to ascertain whether the medication may interfere with safe performance of his/her job. If the use of a medication could compromise the safety of the employee, fellow employees or company property, it is the employee's responsibility to notify your supervisor and take a leave of absence to avoid unsafe workplace practices. No employee is permitted to work while under the influence of a narcotic.
I know people hate lawyers, and I hate myself sometimes, but this policy is a good illustration of why employers need them -- er, us. First, it says that employees must turn in their prescriptions to HR. No exceptions. (So, if I'm a woman taking birth control pills or a man taking Viagra, I have to let HR keep my prescription "on file"?)
But then it says employees who are on medications that could affect their safe performance of the job must tell the supervisor and take a leave of absence. (I guess the employee just walks up to the supervisor and says, "Hey, boss, I'm going to take a leave of absence because I'm on painkillers for my back." And then the supervisor says, "OK. Later, dude.") And, if the drug is a narcotic -- what? Do you get to tell your supervisor that you're taking a leave of absence, like your co-worker who was on the unsafe meds? Are you fired? Are you allowed to work with accommodations? Does HR keep your prescription "on file"? Who knows?
Well, apparently, no one at the company could agree on what the policy meant, either. Some people testified that they thought it applied only to mind-altering substances. Other people testified that they thought all prescriptions had to be turned in to HR, and they had done so. According to the court, "employees have told the company about prescriptions to treat many different medical conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergies, bacterial infections and skin conditions, depression, and seasonal affective disorder."
Skin conditions? I'm on prednisone for the poison ivy rash I got while clearing the underbrush in my back yard last weekend, and I have to provide HR with a copy of my prescription?
The court acknowledged that the workplace was dangerous and that it might be appropriate, for safety reasons, to require some disclosure about legal medications. But the policy (and employees' understanding of it) was arguably overbroad, so that claim will go to a jury.
Here's the kicker: The employee on whose behalf the EEOC was suing is also the employee who drafted this policy, and she was terminated because of a drug testing issue. The judge dismissed the EEOC's claim that the employee was terminated because of a disability. However, a claim that the employee was unlawfully terminated for failing to comply with the allegedly unlawful drug policy that she drafted will go forward.
If I were on that jury, I would find in favor of the company on all claims. The nerve of drafting a bad policy, failing to follow it, and then suing when you got fired for failing to follow it. But enough about me. How should an employer go about requiring employees to disclose their legal medications? Here are a few suggestions:
First, you do have a right to expect your employees to be of sound mind and unimpaired when they come to work, especially if their jobs are safety-sensitive. Illegal drugs can impair, but sometimes legal drugs can do so as well. Pre-employment and random testing should take care of the illegal drugs, but with legal drugs, the only way you'll be able to protect employees is to require that they disclose any legal medications that could affect their ability to be safe while at work.
Keep your disclosure requirement as narrow as possible, while still allowing you to achieve your goals. When I'm drafting one of these "legal medications" policies, I usually word it this way: "You must notify Human Resources if you are taking any legal medication that could impair your ability to safely or competently perform your job." This makes it clear that the employer doesn't want to know about birth control pills, Viagra, or poison ivy drugs.
Make it clear in the written policy that you have every intention of complying with your ADA obligations. Something like this: "If you are taking this type of medication, the company will determine, in consultation with your health care provider, whether you can continue to perform your current job. If not, you will be temporarily removed from the safety-sensitive position and reassigned to another position or placed on a temporary leave of absence. When you are no longer taking the medication, you will be restored to your original position." I'd also include a statement in the policy that the information provided by the employee will be kept confidential and separate from the employee's personnel file, as required by the ADA.
Treat all legal medications the same, whether they are prescription or not. Some over-the-counter medications can have significant mind-altering effects, too. Not to mention alcohol and legal marijuana.
Apply this policy to all safety-sensitive positions, at least. This would include safety-sensitive positions, like machine operators, truck drivers, and outside sales reps who have to be on the road. But even non-safety-sensitive employees need to be clear-headed when they're at work, and they need to be able to perform their positions competently.
Finally, if -- despite all your best efforts -- employees turn in their Viagra prescriptions to you, GIVE THEM BACK.
Image Credits: From flickr, Creative Commons license: Frowning woman by David Johns, old men by Hamed Parham. Other images from Adobe Stock.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010