Intoxicated Employees Not Protected By ADA

The US District Court for Massachusetts has ruled that the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") does not prevent an employer from firing an employee who reports to work intoxicated, even though the employee's status as an alcoholic is protected. The employer had a policy that prohibited reporting to work under the influence. After an employee was fired for such an offense, he sued claiming the employer should have accommodated his disability. The court held that even though alcoholism is a disability under ADA, the statute did not require the employer to tolerate a clear violation of its policy.

Why This Is Important . . . An employer may terminate an employee for showing up to work while under the influence of alcohol regardless of the fact that alcoholism is a disability under the ADA. To avoid liability surrounding such a termination the employer should have a policy prohibiting reporting to work under the influence. The policy should be applied fairly and consistently to all employees.

Attachment Of Tax Lien Before Notice And Hearing Allowed

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently upheld the attachment of a tax lien by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, to an individual's house. The lien was attached to secure payment of sales tax allegedly owed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that imposing a lien on his property before notice and a judicial hearing amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights. The Court disagreed, concluding that the plaintiff's due process rights can be satisfied by postdeprivation proceedings.

Why This Is Important . . . Individuals should be aware that if they fail to pay taxes, the state can put a lien on their property without any prior notice or judicial hearing. The individual will only have an opportunity to contest the lien after it has be imposed.

Age Discrimination Waiver Not Effective

An employee received pay and benefits in exchange for a waiver of any age discrimination claim. After he took the pay and benefits, he filed an age discrimination claim. The employer tried to get the case dismissed. The court ruled that since the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act had not been complied with, the employee could sue and was not required to pay back the money to maintain the lawsuit.

Why This Is Important . . . A specific federal statute sets out rules for making an age discrimination claim waiver effective. Because the law was not complied with, this employee was allowed both to sue and keep the money. To make these waivers effective, the statute must be complied with.