Blogs

INDUSTRY NEWS

Container Manufacturer Accused of Disability Discrimination

Plaintiff claims he was denied employment despite producing proper documentation regarding prescribed medications.

Plaintiff Raymond Hartmann applied for a position with Defendant Graham Packaging Company, L.P. ("Graham") in October, 2017. Job requirements for the position included operating a forklift. Plaintiff met with management at Graham, toured the facility and completed an application. During the initial interview, Plaintiff disclosed his use of narcotics and, as requested by Graham, provided a note from his physician (dated July, 2017) which stated that the use of his medications would not create a safety concern. Graham offered Plaintiff the job contingent on passing a pre-employment physical and drug screen.

Plaintiff submitted to the physical and the drug screening which was negative; however, "safety sensitive" was handwritten on the side of the report by the testing facility. The Defendant's HR department requested a new letter from the Plaintiff's doctor which Plaintiff did supply. This letter was identical to the first but was dated November 17, 2021. According to the complaint, Graham's HR department ultimately advised against hiring Plaintiff because his medication presented a safety concern.

As a result, Plaintiff sued Graham under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in July, 2019, claiming that the company had engaged in discrimination on the basis of his disability. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment in March of 2021. The court heard arguments on Motions for Summary Judgment in November of 2021 and recently denied both Graham's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

In addressing the cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first assessed whether medication side effects constitute a disability. The court cited an EEOC regulation and found that the negative side effects of medicine/medical treatment can constitute an impairment for purposes of the ADA. Here, Defendant withdrew the job offer because it believed the side effects of Plaintiff's medication rendered him unable to safely operate a forklift, sufficiently demonstrating that the Defendant regarded him as disabled.

As to the point of individualized inquiry, evidence was presented that Plaintiff held a similar job operating a forklift at another company while taking the same medications and apparently had no safety incidents. However, Graham's contention was that the opioid regimen could compromise the health and safety of others. To this point, the court noted that it was not clear whether the employer conducted an "individualized inquiry" to assess whether the Plaintiff's disability disqualified him from the position. As such, the court's denied summary judgment.

Employers are encouraged to periodically review the terms of the ADA as well as regulations issued by the EEOC to determine how hiring practices may be impacted as it relates to drug testing and prescribed medications. Employers are also reminded to implement and review internal drug testing policies and designations of safety sensitive positions.

Posted: February 8, 2022


All Rights Reserved © 2022 Business Information Group, Inc.
This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.

Sending...
Thank you for your interest in Business Information Group. We have received your message and will contact you in one business day or less.
You have exceeded the number of attempts to submit this form. As a result, your IP address has been temporarily blocked.

Get In Touch

Send a Message *fields required

What are your Interests?optional

Contact Information

Even our RFP PROCESS is state-of-the-art.

Take a look
RFP Kit

What our clients are saying

We cannot express enough how much we have enjoyed working with BIG! It has really benefitted our processing and ease of doing business!

Licensing and Registration Manager
Investment and Insurance Company

I enjoy collaborating with BIG, and know that if I have to reach out with a question/concern, a positive attitude with a willingness to find resolve is on the other side of an email or a phone call.

Human Resources Administrator
Global Financial Services Firm

You have been the most professional and most helpful business partner that I have ever been associated with — always there to assist us and with rapid turnaround times.

Principal Consultant
Major Professional Services Network

I am confident whenever we add a product with your company that I will have a good experience.

Division Manager
Insurance and Financial Services Agency

We have received superior service and we know this is what you and your team strive for. We are grateful for the dedication, level of professionalism and effort shown.

Agent
Large Insurance Agency
Sending...
Thank you for your interest in Business Information Group. We have received your message and will contact you within one business day.
Our apologies, there was an error processing your request.  Please resubmit your message or contact us at 800-369-2612.
You have exceeded the number of attempts to submit this form. As a result, your IP address has been temporarily blocked.
Our apologies, there was an error processing your request.  Please resubmit your message or contact us at 800-369-2612.

Get In Touch

Send a Message *fields required

What are your Interests?optional

You are leaving BIGReport.com

Ok, Continue Cancel

×
×