Breaux v. Bollinger Shipyards, LLC
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2018 case, the court allowed ADA claims to proceed where an employee fired for Suboxone use alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate; however, it dismissed privacy claim as lacking evidence of unreasonable intrusion.

2018 | Federal Juristiction

Breaux v. Bollinger Shipyards, LLC

Keywords ADA; disability discrimination; reasonable accommodation; suboxone; privacy
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A 2018 court decision permitted the progression of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. The plaintiff, an employee terminated for Suboxone use, alleged discriminatory practices and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Conversely, the court dismissed a related privacy claim due to insufficient evidence demonstrating unreasonable intrusion upon the plaintiff's personal affairs.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A 2018 court ruling permitted an employee's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims to move forward. The employee, terminated for Suboxone use, alleged both discriminatory dismissal and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Conversely, the court dismissed the employee's privacy claim due to insufficient evidence demonstrating unreasonable intrusion upon their personal affairs.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A 2018 court case allowed an employee's lawsuit to continue. The employee, who was fired for using Suboxone, claimed discrimination and a lack of workplace accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, the court dismissed a separate claim about privacy because the employee didn't provide enough evidence of unreasonable intrusion into their private life.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court case from 2018 let a worker continue their case. The worker said their company fired them unfairly because they used Suboxone, a medicine. The court said the company might have discriminated and not helped the worker. But, the court threw out another part of the case. The worker said the company invaded their privacy, but the court said there wasn't enough proof of that.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

No. 16-2331

Highlights