We employment lawyers, of course, know that alcoholism is considered a disability, both under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Employers have become more educated about the issue and have imposed workplace policies to address the addictions of their employees. The substance abuse issue typically arises in the context of determining an employer’s obligation to “reasonably accommodate” an alcoholic/addict, or determining whether an employer has a right to conduct drug/alcohol testing of its employees.
Generally, under the law, employers are not expected to tolerate inappropriate behavior or poor performance on the part of alcoholics/addicts, and they may perform “reasonable suspicion” testing of employees who appear to be intoxicated in the workplace. But, while reasonableness is the guidepost for so many of these and other questions under the law, the recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision in A.D.P. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co., 428 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. Oct. 26, 2012), makes it crystal clear that, when evaluating the termination of employment of an alcoholic employee with no documented performance issues, based on a policy that expressly treats alcoholics differently than others, reasonableness is simply not the standard.
