Case:  William T. Moorer  v. Baptist Memorial Health Care System, et al.  

Citation:  2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2227; 2005 FED App. 0069P (6th Cir.)

Judgment: $1.1 Million to Plaintiff

Summary: Plaintiff, Administrator and Chief Financial Officer, became regarded as an alcoholic after a meeting with his supervisor where the supervisor believed she smelled alcohol on his breath and also observed Plaintiff slump in his chair with his chin on his chest, and then straighten up and be “rather fidgety” in his seat and his complexion appeared noticeably flushed.  The supervisor did not immediately confront Plaintiff with her suspicion that he appeared intoxicated.

Two days after the meeting, Plaintiff’s supervisor discussed the incident with upper management.  This led to further discussions between Plaintiff’s supervisor and upper management that included an email where Plaintiff’s supervisor surmised that this one incident was indicative of alcoholism.       

Approximately a month after the meeting, Plaintiff was confronted regarding his perceived alcoholism and required to take a fitness assessment examination and undergo five weeks of rehabilitation and treatment.  Plaintiff was assured that he would have a job when he returned from treatment.    

While undergoing the prescribed treatment regime conditioned upon retaining his employment, the Defendants terminated Plaintiff. 

After a bench trial on Plaintiff’s ADA and ADEA claims before District Judge Bernice Donald, the court found that the Defendants had violated the ADA but not the ADEA.  The district court found that Plaintiff did not suffer an actual disability, nor did he have a record of a disability. Instead, the court focused on the theory that Defendants regarded him as having a disability: alcoholism. The court noted that “Plaintiff’s supervisor…perceived Plaintiff as an alcoholic and perceived that alcoholism precluded him from competently performing his job. Based on this perception, Defendant[s] regarded Plaintiff as disabled and used subsequently discovered evidence of Plaintiff’s deficiencies to justify…his discharge.”

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ADA ruling, however, it reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FMLA claim.  Citing Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit reasoned that by terminating Plaintiff while on FMLA leave, the Defendants “exposed itself to liability under both statutes [ADA and FMLA], and therefore Plaintiff was entitled to present both theories of liability to the fact finder.”

Words to the Wise:  

1. If an employee appears intoxicated while at work, such an event should be addressed immediately by a supervisor or human resource professional and documented pursuant to company policy.  In the event that a policy is not in place, the suspected employee should be confronted, sent home, and arrangements made to ensure that the employee arrives home safely. 

2. Terminating an employee while on FMLA leave is permissible, however, an employer should exhaust all other options, including allowing the employee to return from FMLA leave, to avoid a clear violation of the reinstatement provisions of the FMLA.

3. Managers and supervisors should refrain from attributing any kind medical or psychiatric condition as a reason for job deficiencies when discussing an employee’s performance.  Further, when managers and supervisors discuss an employee’s performance, objective criteria (such as meeting deadlines and performance goals that can be measured) should only be used to judge an employee’s performance.