Amici (public-health scholars) explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a chronic brain disorder—not a series of “temporary bouts of inebriation”—that alters judgment, memory, decision-making, and self-control and substantially limits major life activities even between episodes. Under the ADA Amendments Act, episodic or remitted conditions count as disabilities if they would substantially limit a major life activity when active; the district court ignored that mandate and leaned on pre-ADAAA cases. Applying the correct standard, a jury could find that Mr. Mueck’s AUD is disabling based on his cravings, impaired thinking and concentration, and compulsive use. Amici also argue the court erred in downplaying his accommodation request: asking to miss four evening shifts to attend court-approved group therapy was a textbook, reasonable accommodation tied to his disability and treatment—no “magic words” required. Section 12114(c)(4) (holding alcohol-dependent employees to neutral performance and conduct rules) doesn’t excuse an employer from providing schedule or leave accommodations where, as here, there were no performance or misconduct issues and the termination followed a refusal to adjust scheduling. Amici urge reversal so a jury can decide disability and accommodation under the ADAAA’s broad protections.

Summary

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is understood as a chronic brain disorder, distinct from temporary episodes of intoxication. This condition alters an individual's judgment, memory, decision-making abilities, and self-control, leading to substantial limitations in major life activities even during periods between active episodes.

The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) specifies that conditions which are episodic or in remission should be recognized as disabilities if they would significantly limit a major life activity when active. It is contended that the district court disregarded this mandate, relying instead on legal precedents established before the ADAAA. Applying the correct legal standard, a jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Mueck’s AUD is a disabling condition, based on evidence of his cravings, impaired thought processes, and compulsive substance use.

Furthermore, it is argued that the court erred in its assessment of Mr. Mueck's request for accommodation. His request to miss four evening work shifts to attend court-approved group therapy sessions is presented as a typical and reasonable accommodation, directly linked to his disability and its required treatment. While Section 12114(c)(4) permits employers to uphold neutral performance and conduct rules for employees with alcohol dependency, this provision does not exempt an employer from providing necessary scheduling or leave accommodations. In this particular case, there were no reported issues of poor performance or misconduct, and the termination followed a refusal to adjust the work schedule.

The legal scholars (Amici) advocate for a reversal of the lower court’s decision, allowing a jury to properly evaluate the issues of disability and reasonable accommodation under the broad protective scope of the ADAAA.

Summary

Public health experts explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a lasting brain condition, not merely temporary periods of being drunk. It changes a person's judgment, memory, ability to make decisions, and self-control. This disorder significantly limits major daily activities, even during times when the person is not drinking. The ADA Amendments Act states that conditions which occur periodically, or are currently controlled, are still considered disabilities if they would substantially limit a major life activity when active. The district court ignored this rule and instead relied on older cases. Applying the correct standard, a jury could determine that Mr. Mueck's AUD is a disability, given his strong cravings, impaired thinking and concentration, and compulsive alcohol use.

The experts also argue that the court was wrong to undervalue Mr. Mueck's request for an accommodation. His request to miss four evening work shifts to attend court-approved group therapy was a clear, reasonable adjustment directly related to his disability and treatment, requiring no special phrasing. Even though a specific law (Section 12114(c)(4)) allows employers to hold employees with alcohol dependence to standard performance and behavior rules, it does not release an employer from providing necessary schedule changes or leave. In this case, there were no issues with Mr. Mueck's work performance or conduct, and his employment ended after his employer refused to adjust his schedule. The experts are urging that the court's decision be reversed so that a jury can decide on the matters of disability and accommodation, following the wide protections offered by the ADA Amendments Act.

Summary

Experts explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a lasting brain problem, not just getting drunk sometimes. It changes how a person thinks, remembers, makes choices, and controls themselves. AUD also makes it hard to do important things in life, even when someone is not drinking. A law called the ADA says that health problems that come and go, like AUD, count as disabilities if they make it very hard to do important things when active. The court did not follow this law. If the court used the correct law, a jury might decide that Mr. Mueck's AUD is a disability because he had strong cravings and trouble thinking. The experts also say the court was wrong to not take his request seriously. Mr. Mueck asked to miss four night shifts to go to therapy that a court approved. This was a normal and fair request to help with his disability. A rule says workers with alcohol problems must follow workplace rules, but this does not mean a boss can refuse to change a worker's schedule. Mr. Mueck was doing his job well and was fired because his boss would not change his schedule. The experts want the court's decision changed so a jury can decide if AUD is a disability and if his request for time off was fair, using the ADA law.