An employee with epilepsy took physician-prescribed barbiturates to control his condition.He was originally assigned to work at the plant as a temp. However, Benchmark had a practice of hiring temps who performed well as permanent employees. The plaintiff was offered the opportunity to apply for permanent employment and did so. The process included a drug test. The plaintiff tested positive due to his medication. An HR representative contacted the plaintiff’s supervisor and asked him to send the plaintiff to the HR office to meet with the Medical Review Officer (MRO). Although nothing had been said about the reason for the request, the supervisor correctly surmised that the plaintiff’s drug test had come back positive. He asked to see the plaintiff’s prescription. He then had the plaintiff call to speak with the MRO. While the supervisor remained in the office, the plaintiff discussed his condition and prescription drug use with the MRO. The plaintiff was eventually cleared for hiring, but the supervisor refused to do so. He cited attitude and performance problems and an alleged threat made against him – issues that had not previously been raised – as the basis for the refusal to hire. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? Why?

2. Would the purpose of prohibiting pre-employment medical inquiries be defeated if the court had ruled that this requirement applied only to disabled job candidates?

3. What medical inquiries were made in this case? Why might they have violated the ADA?

4. What should an employer do to verify whether a positive drug test result was caused by a lawful prescription drug?