By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Maxson v Baldwin, an Ohio deputy sheriff sued his ex-Employer after he was discharged following a guilty plea to the misdemeanor of attempting to illegally fill an opioid prescription and testing positive for marijuana. The lawsuit alleged that the Employer discriminated against him by failing to accommodate him under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Lonnie Maxson was a deputy sheriff with Ohio Franklin County Sheriff’s Department until he was discharged in April of 2021, following his guilty plea and positive drug test. After reaggravating a debilitating back injury during an incident with an inmate, Maxson was prescribed opioids to help manage the pain and facilitate his ability to work. Eventually Maxson became addicted to opioids, and also developed an alcohol and marijuana addiction from using them to supplement his opioid use.
In February of 2021, Maxson was arrested for attempting to deceptively obtain an opioid prescription from an emergency room. Maxson ultimately pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for attempting to illegally fill a prescription. Shortly after, he was placed on administrative leave and given a drug test that came back positive for marijuana. As a part of the investigation, Maxson was given a second drug test a month later, which came up negative for marijuana. Maxson was terminated without the option to enter a rehabilitation program; an option that was afforded to other officers who suffered from alcohol addiction. Maxson’s suit was initially dismissed in district court, then Maxson appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Appellate Court first noted that marijuana use is illegal under federal law, so Maxson’s use took him outside of the protection of the ADA. Maxson claimed that because his second drug test came up negative for marijuana, this was evidence that he was not currently using an illegal drug when he was denied accommodation. The Court addressed this claim by stating,
“There’s no brightline rule on when drug use is considered to be current, but courts have repeatedly held that use within months prior to a firing is recent enough under the ADA”
The Court reasoned that Maxson’s first positive test was recent enough to support a reasonable belief by the employer that Maxson had an “on-going” issue with illegal drugs. Further, the record showed that Maxson was experiencing withdrawals at the time of the second test, which Maxson conceded interfered with his ability to do his job. Therefore, the Court concluded that Maxson was not entitled to protection under the ADA. Thus, the Court ruled that Maxson was not subject to disability discrimination when he was denied accommodation.
Although the ADA broadly protects employees suffering from medical conditions, it provides very narrow protections to those employees involved with drug addiction. There are some specific provisions governing nondiscrimination for those with a “history” of drug use, but those provisions do not extend when the use is deemed “current.” As this court said, the case law hasn’t created a “bright line” for that. But the use involved here clearly fell inside the “current” side of the line.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination**
