By Mitchell Riese and Mathias M. Deeg
In Green v. Pike Rd. Volunteer Fire Protection Authority, the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama upheld a Fire Chief’s claim of disability discrimination despite the existence of non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. The Court found that the employer’s comments about the Fire Chief’s past drug and alcohol use cast enough doubt on the stated motivation for his termination to send the case to trial.
Michael Green worked for the Pike Road Volunteer Fire Protection Authority (PRVFPA) from 1996 until his termination in April 2014. In January 2014, Green was arrested for DUI and failed to notify his employer. In February, Green acknowledged the DUI during a meeting with the Board of Directors but stated that alcohol had not played a part. The Board expressed concern about his ability to fully perform his duties and requested that Green resign as Fire Chief; he refused and was subsequently placed on restricted duties.
The Board met again in April and discussed Green’s future as Fire Chief, though the exact statements made are in dispute. Green claimed that one board member made statements about his past and current drug and alcohol use, including commenting that Green was “pumped up on oxycodone and alcohol.” Partial recordings of the meeting showed some references to his past drug and alcohol use were made, and there was testimony that one Board member saw the DUI as the last straw. The Board voted 2 to 1 in favor of Green’s termination.
To establish disability discrimination under the ADA, plaintiffs must show they (1) have a disability, (2) are qualified for the position at hand, and (3) were discriminated against because of that disability. Employees who are not disabled, but are treated by their employer as if they are, are also protected by the ADA.
Green filed suit claiming he was terminated because the Board believed he had problems with alcohol and prescription drug abuse.
The PRVFPA argued that Green’s policy violations, such as being arrested in a PRVFPA-labeled vehicle to the detriment of the employer’s reputation, as well as violating the Board’s trust by failing to inform them of the DUI, were non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. Green, on the other hand, argued that the Board maintained a double standard—another firefighter experienced different treatment following a DUI—and that its perception of him as having past and current problems with drug and alcohol abuse served as the chief motivation behind his termination; a direct violation of the ADA’s prohibition against discrimination based on an employee’s disability.
In order to survive summary judgment and proceed to trial, the employee simply needs to show that a jury could find that the employer’s stated reasons for terminating the employee were not true. . The Court applied this standard in reviewing the entirety of the events, including the Board’s statements and past treatment of PRVFPA policy violations, and found that Green had cast sufficient doubt on the Board’s claims.
[A] question of fact has been raised as to whether the Board members who voted for termination did so because they regarded Green as having an alcohol or prescription painkiller substance abuse problem. It may well be that the court will determine…that the reasons offered for Green’s termination were not a pretext for firing him based on a perception that he had a disability in the form of a substance abuse problem. But, at this point in the proceedings… the court cannot make that determination.
The Court denied PRVFPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment .
This case illustrates how the laws prohibiting disability discrimination protect individuals who have an alcohol or chemical dependency problem or have a history of such dependency. Importantly, this must be distinguished from the active use of alcohol or drugs on the job by an employee – such behavior is not protected and can subject the employee to discipline.
