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 identified by public health experts as a lasting brain condition, distinct from temporary episodes of intoxication. This disorder impairs judgment, memory, decision-making, and self-control, significantly limiting major life activities even between active episodes. The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) mandates that conditions occurring in episodes or in remission are still considered disabilities if they would substantially limit a major life activity when active. The lower court disregarded this mandate, relying instead on legal precedents from before the ADAAA. Applying the correct legal standard, a jury could determine that Mr. Mueck’s AUD is a disability, based on his reported cravings, impaired thinking and concentration, and compulsive use of alcohol.

These experts further argue that the court erred in dismissing Mr. Mueck’s request for accommodation. His request to miss four evening work shifts to attend court-approved group therapy represents a clear and reasonable accommodation directly linked to his disability and its treatment, not requiring any specific phrasing to be valid. While Section 12114(c)(4) of the ADA allows employers to hold employees with alcohol dependence to consistent performance and conduct standards, this provision does not relieve an employer of the duty to provide scheduling or leave accommodations. In this particular instance, there were no issues with Mr. Mueck’s performance or behavior, and his employment was terminated after his request for a scheduling adjustment was denied. Therefore, experts advocate for the reversal of the court’s decision, allowing a jury to properly assess the issues of disability and accommodation under the broad protections provided by the ADAAA.

Summary

Public health experts explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a long-lasting brain condition, not just temporary periods of drinking too much. This disorder changes a person's judgment, memory, how they make decisions, and their self-control. It significantly limits major life activities even when someone is not actively drinking. The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) states that conditions that come and go, or conditions that are in remission, are still considered disabilities if they would seriously limit a major life activity when active. The court in question did not follow this rule and instead used older cases.

Following the correct legal standard, a jury could decide that Mr. Mueck's AUD is a disability. This could be based on his strong cravings, difficulty thinking clearly and concentrating, and his compulsive use of alcohol. The experts also argue that the court was wrong to dismiss Mr. Mueck's request for help. Asking to miss four evening shifts to attend court-approved group therapy was a standard and reasonable request directly related to his disability and treatment. There was no need for specific "magic words" to make the request valid. A specific law (Section 12114(c)(4)) states that employers can hold employees with alcohol dependence to the same performance and behavior standards as others. However, this law does not excuse an employer from providing schedule changes or leave. In this case, Mr. Mueck had no performance or behavior problems, and his job loss happened after the company refused to adjust his schedule. The experts want the court's decision reversed so a jury can properly decide the issues of disability and accommodation under the broad protections of the ADAAA.

Summary

Public health experts explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a long-lasting brain condition, not simply occasional periods of being drunk. This condition changes a person's judgment, memory, decision-making, and self-control. It significantly limits major life activities, even when the person is not actively using alcohol. According to the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), conditions that come and go, or are currently inactive, are still considered disabilities if they would seriously limit a major life activity when they are active. The lower court in this case did not follow this rule and instead used older legal decisions. If the correct rules are followed, a jury could decide that Mr. Mueck’s Alcohol Use Disorder is a disability because of his intense cravings, difficulty thinking and focusing, and uncontrolled use of alcohol. The experts also believe the court was wrong to dismiss his request for a change. His request to miss four evening shifts for therapy approved by the court was a standard and reasonable change related to his condition and treatment. He did not need to use specific legal terms to make this request valid. A specific law allows employers to hold employees with alcohol dependence to the same work performance and behavior rules. However, this law does not mean an employer can refuse to adjust schedules or allow time off, especially when, as in this case, there were no problems with his work or behavior, and he was fired after his employer would not adjust his schedule. The experts ask the court to overturn the previous decision. This would allow a jury to decide if his condition is a disability and if his request for an accommodation should have been granted, following the broad protections of the ADAAA.

Summary

Experts explain that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a lasting problem with the brain, not just getting drunk sometimes. It changes how a person thinks, remembers, makes choices, and controls themselves, making everyday life much harder even when not drinking. A law called the ADA Amendments Act says that problems that come and go, or get better, can still be considered disabilities if they cause big issues when active. The court in this case did not follow this rule. A jury could find that Mr. Mueck's AUD is a disability because he had strong cravings, trouble thinking, and felt he had to use alcohol. The experts also say the court was wrong to dismiss his request for help; Mr. Mueck asked to miss four evening work shifts for court-approved group therapy, which was a fair request for his disability and treatment, needing no special words. Another rule lets employers expect workers with alcohol problems to follow work rules and behave well, but it does not mean an employer can refuse to change a schedule or give time off when the worker has not done anything wrong at work. Mr. Mueck lost his job after his request for a schedule change was turned down, not because he did anything wrong. The experts believe the court's decision should be changed so a jury can decide if AUD is a disability and if the employer should have helped Mr. Mueck under the law.