Alcohol/Drug Treatment

shandyside

Has anyone encountered an employee who has admitted to his supervisor that he's an alcoholic or drug user "on a binge" and needs to clean up?
This employee called in sick a few days, then admitted to his supervisor that he has a drinking/drug problem and needed to check into a facility to help him clean up. I'm getting the FMLA paperwork ready to mail to him, then he calls supervisor back and says it's going to be an "outpatient" treatment and he's ready to come back to work. He works in healthcare and I think he'd at least need to complete his treatment before I can bring him back. I've never had this happen before -- advice? I know that using drug addict or alcoholic is not covered by FMLA, but I think someone in a program is covered.

Don D

Depends on your policy. Some employers have a policy allowing a 'self disclosing' employee to enroll in a program and not be terminated for missing the time off. I think you're thinking of ADA which does cover an individual who has completed a program. A typical policy clearly outlines conditions such as completing the program, testing, etc; but, these are usually the policies that address employees who randomed positive. If he disclosed his problem and asked for consideration, it's largely up to your policy to decide.

Depending on the policy and the way your company perceives and deals with these issues, it can range from "no way, you're fired if you do", to "certainly, congratulations, we support you and will be here for you throughout the program".

You didn't ask for recommendations, so I won't offer.

hhaynal

Don, clarify for me. My understanding on alcohol/drug addicts is that if they self-disclose to you and indicate they need time off or other accomodation to attend treatment programs, then this falls under ADA and is protected. Now, having said this, if employee is self-disclosed drug/alcohol abuser and has undergone treatment programs in the past and failed, then there is no protection.

If my understanding in this regard is incorrect, please educate. Thanks.

Don D

An employee who is a current user/abuser has no ADA protection at the time he is using/abusing. The Act covers rehabilitated individuals as well as those currently undergoing rehabilitation. It also protects individuals who are erroneously regarded as engaging in drug use. For example; if I have a long haired, earringed, tatooed guy with shifty eyes who the supervisors have concluded (based on those features) must be smoking dope, he is ADA protected.

Current users are not disabled under the ADA and have no protection in that regard.

A person who has been 'rehabilitated', who then gets drunk, then stops again? I would not think that person gives up his ADA protection, except at the time he is using or abusing; but, that's a good question to ponder.

If your guy claims he wants to get into treatment and chooses the 'outpatient' route, he enjoys protection while participating in the program and afterwards unless he fails during and/or after the program. My personal take is I have almost zero faith in the non-residential programs.

hhaynal

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-01-05 AT 07:11AM (CST)[/font][br][br]"Current users are not disabled under the ADA and have no protection in that regard."

Agree, current "drug" users have no protection.

Still argue that current "alcoholics" who have not undergone any prior treatment program is protected under the ADA. My argument lies in that alcoholism is a disease protected by the ADA to a certain extent. Therefore, alcoholic self-discloses to employer and indicates s/he wants to seek treatment. Employer must accomodate under ADA and reasonable accomodation is allowing employee time off for in-patient program or out-patient program. But, if the employee fails the treatment program or continues to drink while on the program, the employer has no further obligation to accomodate.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this line of thinking.

H

Don D

Well, at the risk of splitting hairs, an individual who is not a physician, cannot diagnose their own medical condition. So, the drinker who says he thinks he needs to go and dry out by signing up with the local out-patient program does not have ADA protections as he is not legally a qualified individual with a disability. As I understood the post, he came to this conclusion on his own after a bout with the bottle and several days of absence from work. The way I read the ADA, the individual becomes protected by the accommodation and discrimination safety nets once he completes the program. It is a reasonable accommodation, in most circumstances, to cut an employee a little slack to attend meetings during work hours, say, at lunch break.