The catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill, which arguably might have resulted because of the alcoholism of one of the ship’s officers, occurred in 1989. As a consequence, Exxon Corporation adopted a preventive policy of terminating the employment of employees in safety-sensitive, minimally supervised positions who had undergone treatment for substance abuse. This safety-oriented policy intended to prevent relapses into substance abuse that might harm the public at large applied to approximately 10 percent of the company’s workforce. The EEOC brought suit for a violation of the ADA’s prohibition against broad-based discrimination against a protected class instead of reviewing each individual’s case. Exxon maintained that such individual review would often come too late and at the expense of public safety. Should Exxon be held guilty of illegal discrimination under the ADA? Why or why not? (EEOC v. Exxon Corporation, 203 F. 3d 871, 5th Cir. 2000).