Pollard v. Drummond
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2015 case, the court denied summary judgment on ADA claim, finding firing a coal miner for prescribed methadone use without an individualized assessment raised triable issues about disability discrimination and direct threat.

2015 | Federal Juristiction

Pollard v. Drummond

Keywords ADA; methadone; employment discrimination; direct threat
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The 2015 court decision denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that terminating the employment of a coal miner solely due to their prescribed methadone use, without conducting an individualized assessment of the employee's abilities and potential workplace risks, presented genuine issues of material fact regarding disability discrimination and the existence of a "direct threat." This necessitated a trial to fully adjudicate the claims.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A 2015 court decision denied a motion for summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case. The court found that terminating a coal miner's employment solely due to their prescribed methadone use, without conducting an individualized assessment, presented genuine disputes regarding disability discrimination and the "direct threat" defense. This lack of individualized assessment created sufficient questions of material fact to preclude summary judgment.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A 2015 court case rejected a request to dismiss a disability discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit involved a coal miner fired for taking prescribed methadone. The court decided that the company's failure to individually assess the miner's ability to perform his job before firing him raised significant questions about whether the firing was discriminatory. The court also questioned whether the miner posed a direct threat to workplace safety.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court case from 2015 involved a coal miner who was fired for taking methadone, a medicine. The court decided that the company should not have fired the miner without first checking if the medicine affected his ability to do his job. The court said there were important questions to answer about whether the company discriminated against the miner because of his disability and whether he was a danger to himself or others.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

No. 2:12-CV-03948-MHH

Highlights