Blog

 
     

Drug Testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act

By Michael Klazema on 10/30/2014

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regularly pursues potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It recently settled a case involving an alleged violation of the ADA when an employer failed to hire an applicant who could not perform a pre-employment urinalysis drug test because of a disability. In light of this case, we thought now would be a good time to review the ADA as it relates to drug screening.

The ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of a disability. Under the ADA, employers must provide an employee or applicant who has a disability with a reasonable accommodation. Employers must engage in an interactive process with the employee or applicant in order to determine how to reasonably accommodate the disability. This interactive process is an essential requirement in complying with the ADA.

It is not the responsibility of the applicant or employee to tell the employer how to accommodate a disability. Instead, the employer and its managers and supervisors must be diligent in listening to individual concerns about performing job duties or adhering to company policies. One risk employers face is that an expressed concern is not recognized as a matter that would qualify as a disability under the ADA. This is understandable given the subjective nature of a “disability” under the law. In order to better protect against discrimination under the ADA, employers should as a matter of practice tell their local managers to listen, escalate, respond. They should: (a) listen to concerns expressed by the applicant or employee; (b) escalate the matter to other managers or executives for their input (more is better in this instance), and (c) respond appropriately.

To use the recent case as an example, an acceptable solution would have been to use drug testing that did not depend on urine. There will be occasions when an employer decides that an alternative to a urine test is a reasonable accommodation. Many companies are using hair analysis as an alternative to urinalysis when necessary. If a hair analysis is necessary, backgroundchecks.com can accommodate this service.

Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • July 16 A New Jersey organization that was administering federal grant-funded programs has agreed to pay a $1.1 million settlement for failing to conduct background checks on 46 volunteers.
  • July 11 Under an innovative program that went into effect July 1, Pennsylvania will automatically seal many old criminal records. 
  • July 09 In October, the Georgia Long-Term Care Background Check Program will officially go into effect. Here’s what employers in the state need to know about the law.
  • July 04 Despite the failure of a full-scale legalization effort, New York state has reduced cannabis-related penalties and introduced automatic expungement.
  • July 03 Preparing for the employment background check process can improve your chances of getting hired. Here’s how to do it.
  • July 02 Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District in North Carolina stopped fingerprinting new hires last July even though board policy requires fingerprinting during pre-hire background checks. The fingerprinting “pause” caused alarm in the Charlotte community.
  • June 27 In 2012, the EEOC published new guidelines instructing employers not to use blanket bans against applicants with criminal records. The state of Texas sued. Today, arguments continue in federal circuit court.
  • June 25 Learn the differences between infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies and what each run-in with the law means for a background check report.
  • June 25 A recent federal court ruling has called into question how employers should observe the FCRA when filling independent contractor positions rather than full- or part-time jobs. Many sections of the FCRA are only relevant if background checks are intended for “employment purposes.”
  • June 20 The ACLU has filed suit against the owner of an apartment complex in Virginia alleging discriminatory practices. The owner contends otherwise.