Employee Who Voluntarily Fails to Take Prescribed Medication Not Protected Under ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from

discriminating against individuals with a disability. Someone is disabled if he

or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more

major life activities. What if an employee has an impairment, and also has the

means, through technology, medication, or some other measure to control the

effects of the impairment, but voluntarily decides not to do so? Is that

employee entitled to the protection of the ADA if that failure to control the

disability affects the employee's performance and leads to termination?

According to several courts that have ruled on the issue: No.

In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, (1999) and Sutton v. United Airlines,

Inc., (1999), the Supreme Court held that an individual who takes medication

which alleviates the effects of his or her impairment, and which allows that

person to perform major life activities, is not disabled under the ADA.

Similarly, several lower courts have held an employee's voluntary failure to

control a disability, which failure results in termination, deprives that

employee of the protection of the ADA. For example, in Burrows v. City of

Springfield, (8th Cir. 1998), a police recruit suffering from diabetes suffered

two diabetic hypoglycemic episodes causing him to become disoriented and

dysfunctional while on duty. It was undisputed that the two episodes resulted

from voluntary changes in the recruit's eating schedule. The city removed the

recruit from active duty. The Court noted that the recruit's "own eating

schedule is a matter within his control." The employee in Siefken v.

Village of Arlington Heights, (7th Cir. 1995) was also a diabetic. He failed to

monitor his condition, experienced a diabetic reaction that resulted in

disorientation and memory loss while on duty, and was discharged as a result.

Because control of the diabetes was within the employee's power, the Court

granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

In Tangires v. The Johns-Hopkins Hospital, (D. Md. 2000), an employee refused

to take certain medications and follow her doctor's orders for the treatment

of asthma based on her unsubstantiated belief the medications would harm her.

Her failure to take medications resulted in prolonged absences from work, and

ultimately resulted in the hospital placing her on medical layoff. The employee

challenged the layoff under the ADA, but the court found that she was not

disabled because her...