Am I likely to be fired for this?

[cetiya]

What is the name of your state? WA

Last year I had a dui. my penalties are a fine, victims panel and I just found out I'm being forced to attend an intensive rehab for one year. I have only worked at my job since January. I work three 12 hour shifts, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. None of the rehabs I have talked to are flexible. I'm in double trouble, even if I had the money, which I dont, I cant get the time off, and if I had the time off, I wouldnt have the money. I guess my only option is to tell my boss what is going on, as much as I dont want too. but there is noone to replace me if I leave 4 hours early. I cant be the only person who cant afford this or cant get the time off.
I'm worried I'll be fired for not being able to work the shifts I was hired for. but I have heard that jobs wont fire you if you are getting help for a drug or alcohol problem. what should I do, or what should I say to my boss? if I get fired, I certainly cant go to the rehab at all.

 

[Katy W.]

You are covered by the ADA if you are significantly impaired by drinking or dependant on alcohol (in other words, usually, if you are an alcoholic.)

To be protected by the ADA you must disclose your disability to your employer.

The ADA precludes your employer from firing you because you are getting treatment, in most cases. Ask your employer for the times off as a reasonable accommodation for your disability.

 

[cbg]

BUT be aware that the employer is NOT required to give you the accomodation you request.

 

[cetiya]

Is it the same for non-alcohol problems? It was ativan that got me into this mess, not alcohol.

 

[Katy W.]

Yes, it's the same for drugs. This has to be a longstanding problem, though, and one that significantly impairs a major life function.

CBG is correct, your employer does not have to give you the accommodation that you ask for, if they have an alternate accommodation that works. Thi is Unless accommodating your problem/symptom iany way creates undue hardship for them. (Undue hardship is a significant financial loss i.e. bankruptcy or a modification that would change the nature of the business, among other things.) But, you have to ask for the accommodation, and to be safe put it in writing.




(PS: Put "benzodiazipine addiction" in your search engine and you''ll find websites of entire organizations dedicated to educating the public about how dangerous benodiazipenes are for many people. Good luck with your rehab.)

 

[absconder]

Are there other programs acceptable to the court or probation dept? One that might fit your schedule better. Can you explain the situation to your lawyer and maybe an outpatient program can be substituted. Ask the judge if you have to all he can say is no. Theyd rather have you working and succeeding, plus paying your fines then sitting in jail costing taxpayers money.

 

[cbg]

Another thing to keep in mind is that CURRENT use of either alcohol or drugs is NOT protected under the ADA. While going to rehab offers you a certain amount of protection, if you come to work drunk or are caught with illegal drugs in your system (or your pocket, or your desk) you CAN be fired, rehab or not.

 

[Katy W.]

As CBG said, illegally using drugs and alcohol is not covered, (So I guess for alcohol that would be ...underage drinking?) Being under the influence at work or actually drinking at work is not protected. If you fall off the wagon and start drinking again, though, as long as you don't come to work drunk or drink at work, you still qualify for ADA coverage. Not that I'm saying that would be a good idea.

 

[Beth3]

If you fall off the wagon and start drinking again, though, as long as you don't come to work drunk or drink at work, you still qualify for ADA coverage. That's not an accurate statement. If the poster's off-duty conduct resulted in his job performance suffering, he could certainly be disciplined and even terminated. For example, even if the poster doesn't show up for work under the influence, if he's too hung-over or too tired to do his job adequately, no ADA protections apply.

 

[cbg]

If you fall off the wagon and start drinking again, though, as long as you don't come to work drunk or drink at work, you still qualify for ADA coverage.

You got a source cite for that, Katy? Because it sure as heck isn't what not one, not two, but three different lawyers told me when I had an employee who wasn't drinking AT work or coming in drunk, but whose drinking was affecting his work.

Three different lawyers, all of them experienced in employment law, told me at that time that if the use of alcohol or drugs is affecting their work (in our case, the employee was coming in late, missing meetings with clients, going home early, and essentially not getting his job done) then they are NOT protected by the ADA whether we actually catch him drinking on the job or not.

 

[Katy W.]

CBG and Beth,

What I wrote, "If you fall off the wagon and start drinking again, though, as long as you don't come to work drunk or drink at work, you still qualify for ADA coverage." and the rest of the thread is about coverage. You have for some reason now brought in job performance. No one in this thread was talking about job performance. My post said that an alcoholic currently drinking does not automatically lose ADA coverage. Qualifying for ADA coverage does not mean that the employer can't discipline you for performance, which again is not the subject here.

CBG posted: [

Another thing to keep in mind is that CURRENT use of either alcohol or drugs is NOT protected under the ADA.[/I]

This is true for drugs but not for alcohol.

I feel that I am "corrected" by some who post here when they have not really read or understood my post. CBG posted here saying that an alcoholic who takes a drink loses ADA coverage, a fairly important error to post on the internet. Last week Beth told a poster with a HIPAA violation to go to the DOL, which confused the poster. I make mistakes too, everyone here does, but I don't often see "corrections" when some make a mistake half as often as I get "corrected." A lot of the time when I am "corrected" my post has been misread or misconstrued. It is just getting a little old. Could you please read through my post twice before you jump in like this.

Here is your citation, from the Technical Assistance Manual on Title l of the ADA:

8.4 Alcoholism

While a current illegal user of drugs has no protection under the ADA if the employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection simply because of the alcohol use. An alcoholic is a person with a disability under the ADA and may be entitled to consideration of accommodation, if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of a job.

emphasis mine.

 

[cbg]

Katy, after reading your most recent post, I think it's possible that we are saying the same thing from different directions. You are saying that someone who is a current user does not automatically lose ADA protection. I am saying that a current user does not automatically have protection. In both cases, it's going to be situation specific.

And if I am wrong about a current user not necessarily being covered, please explain to me why three different attorneys agreed with me.

 

[Katy W.]

CBG,

A current user of illegal drugs automatically loses protection.

A current user of alcohol does not automatically lose protection.


Your post said that both lose their protection:

Another thing to keep in mind is that CURRENT use of either alcohol or drugs is NOT protected under the ADA. While going to rehab offers you a certain amount of protection, if you come to work drunk or are caught with illegal drugs in your system (or your pocket, or your desk) you CAN be fired, rehab or not.

We are not talking here about being fired for incompetance or any other job performance problem. Just whether or not an employee is covered by the ADA.

I wouldn't touch the 3 attorney question with a ten foot pole.

 

[cbg]

Okay, fine, Katy, if you want to split hairs. See if you like this better.

A current user of alcohol does not lose his ADA coverage. However, that coverage does NOT mean that he cannot be fired if his job performance is being affected by his alcohol use. ADA coverage or not, if he is not doing his job he can still be fired. So that ADA coverage does him no good at all.

Okay?

 

[Katy W.]

Did you even read my posts?

I don't think that saying an alcoholic cannot be covered by the ADA if he starts drinking is a "splitting hairs" mistake, CBG, I think its pretty important. I'm outta this thread -