September 30, 2026
Drug Addiction, Recovery, and the ADA
On September 30th, the EEOC announced it filed a lawsuit claiming an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it rescinded job offers to four applicants after learning they were prescribed suboxone, an FDA-approved drug used to treat opioid addiction. The employer’s defense is that it employs the ban only for safety-sensitive jobs based on the potential side effects. Can that be a valid defense?
This is not the first time the EEOC has challenged an employer’s “bright line” ban against hiring any person prescribed suboxone. In a 2018 lawsuit the EEOC explained the employer, “violated federal law when it subjected applicants to unlawful medical inquiries and refused to hire qualified applicants based on their disability or medical treatment…without considering whether it affected [their] ability to do the job safely.”
Therein lies the rub. The EEOC requires covered employers to conduct an “individualized assessment” to determine if and how an applicant or employee’s use of a prescribed medication may impact the person’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job. A blanket ban does not permit that inquiry. Blanket bans require careful consideration before implementation.
Consider the EEOC’s guidance. “Employers cannot base hiring decisions on blanket assumptions about an applicant who takes a prescription medication without inquiring into whether or not the individual experiences any side effects…Employers cannot rely solely on drug manufacturers’ listing of potential side effects as proof that an applicant cannot safely perform a job.”
Whether you are considering implementing an employment ban or restriction based on prescribed medication, certain criminal records, or something else, consult with your company’s employment counsel.
