An alcoholic employee disclosed his dependency issues to his employer. After completing treatment, the employee was terminated. Add suspected associational discrimination to the mix, and the employer finds itself in hot water over alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations.
Employer Pins Rate Hike on Employee’s Daughter
In February 1982, Damon Adams began working at Persona’s plant and warehouse in Madison, South Dakota. During his time at Persona, Adams was promoted to various positions and ultimately became plant manager.
Adams’ daughter suffers from an autoimmune disease that requires transfusion treatments every six to eight weeks. Her health insurance was provided through Persona’s insurance plan.
In November 2011, Persona’s president of HR, Carol Hinderaker, held a meeting and announced that health insurance premiums would increase by 22.51 percent. Hinderaker blamed the rate hike on two employees but did not specifically name the employees who caused the increase. However, she implied that Adams was one of the employees, stating that “one reason the insurance premium rates were going to be higher was because one employee’s daughter needed treatments every six to eight weeks and the treatments were expensive.” Adams’ wife called a Persona official, and the official confirmed that Adams was one of the employees with high insurance payouts.
Adams Discloses Battle with Alcoholism
In August 2012, David Holien, Persona’s CEO, Al Haselhorst, Persona’s production manager, and Hinderaker met with Adams after being notified of possible alcohol-related misconduct at work. During the meeting, Adams was told that the company was engaging in a “fact-finding mission,” and he was asked about his alcohol consumption. Adams admitted to having alcohol dependency issues. Hinderaker advised him to seek treatment and informed him that Persona would give him 10 weeks of leave. Additionally, she told him that he was suspended and that his employment status would be reevaluated in 30 days.
Adams completed treatment on September 12. On September 28, he met with Holien, Haselhorst, Hinderaker, and Persona’s president. Adams expressed his commitment to his job, his recovery, and sobriety and stated he wished to return to his plant manager position. He was told the company was not prepared to make a decision regarding his employment at that time.
On October 10, Adams was terminated. He sued Persona in South Dakota federal court for retaliation and associational discrimination in violation of the ADA.
No ‘Magic Words’ Needed for Accommodation
Persona asked the court to dismiss both of Adams’ claims. The employer asserted that Adams didn’t request an accommodation and that it recommended that he seek treatment. If the court found that Adams did not request an accommodation, he would be precluded from arguing that he engaged in protected activity necessary to establish a retaliation claim under the ADA.
The court held that Adams adequately alleged that Persona retaliated against him because of his request for an accommodation. An employer has a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability once it has knowledge of the necessity of the accommodation. Nothing in the ADA sets forth how an accommodation may be requested. However, the ADA requires an employer to reasonably accommodate its employees’ known disabilities.
The court held that Adams’ admission to having alcohol dependency issues could be construed as a request for an accommodation. That admission put Persona on notice and triggered its duty to accommodate. The court stated that a reasonable jury could conclude that Persona retaliated against Adams because of his admission of alcohol dependency. Because Adams met the criteria for a prima facie (minimally sufficient) retaliation claim, the court ruled that his claim could be heard by a jury.
Adams’ Associational Discrimination Claim Survives
Under the ADA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because of his association with a person with a disability. The court noted that Persona knew that Adams’ daughter was disabled and required medical treatment every six to eight weeks. Persona implied that his daughter’s treatments were part of the reason for the rise in insurance premiums and confirmed to his wife that he was one of the employees with high insurance payouts. The court determined that it could be concluded that Persona was aware that Adams’ daughter was covered by and used its insurance plan. The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that Persona engaged in associational discrimination. Therefore, Adams’ claim will be heard by a jury.
Bottom Line
Alcoholism is not precluded from being a covered disability under the ADA. Employers should remember that employees are not required to use any “magic words” when requesting an accommodation. An employer simply being aware of an employee’s disability—as Persona was in this case—can trigger a duty to accommodate. Listen carefully to employees, and remember that there are less obvious ways to request an accommodation.
Associational discrimination claims are rare, but this case demonstrates that they do occasionally arise. Disclosing the cause of health insurance premium hikes (e.g., due to a disability of an employee’s family member) to employees in an attempt to “explain it away” is a sure-fire way to get into trouble. Avoid disclosing information regarding the cause of insurance premium hikes.