How, if at all, does the law apply?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Colorado

A contract employee I recommended a few months ago has been given notice they are releasing him. I suspect, as he does, that it hinges on some performance issues coming from a medical condition he has that he needs meds for, but has not had for about 6 weeks because he couldn't get a prescription (the med can only be prescribed one month at a time) and he hasn't been able to see the specialist for the med yet. He explained to our team lead that he had a condition, but they are still releasing him. He is an employee of a consulting company which placed him here.

I don't want him to go both because he is an old friend, and because I don't want to lose the recruiting fee ($1000!) I will receive after he is here 90 days.

Is he protected, or does his work status of contractor here mean he is unprotected by EEOC guidelines?

By "contractor", do you mean an independent contractor for whom you were a job broker?

Or do you mean an employee of YOUR company (generally speaking, a staffing agency) whom YOU pay as an employee?

Neither. I merely gave his name when they needed someone to come in for a specific project. He is employed by the company owning the project contract, and works here. I get a bonus for recommending him.

So... he works for Consulting Company X as their employee. They contract him out to Client A to perform the work. Consulting Company X is searching for a new project for his skills, but effectively, he will be unemployed at 5 tomorrow.

If he has a medical condition which makes him unable to properly do the job then no law will protect him.

He hasn't worked for the employer (assuming this is his first assignment through them) for at least one year, so FMLA will not apply.

Depending on the condition and how it affects him, the ADA might have applied, but the employer doesn't have to accept poor performance from a disabled employee (especially if he's off his meds) that they wouldn't accept in a nondisabled employee. What is the condition? Is it temporary or permanent?

I suspect, as he does, that it hinges on some performance issues coming from a medical condition he has that he needs meds for, but has not had for about 6 weeks because he couldn't get a prescription (the med can only be prescribed one month at a time) and he hasn't been able to see the specialist for the med yet.

Meaning your friend did not anticipate the need to schedule a doctor's appointment in advance of his prescription expiring? That's not the employer's fault. If your friend is unable to do his job properly because he's not on the necessary medication, it's legal to let him go.

No. He was uninsured and had to wait until it kicked in to see the specialist. His last doctor had given him a prescription which lasted until about 3 weeks prior to the insurance kicking in.

He has a fairly strong case of Adult ADD, and without his prescription he has a lot of trouble focusing. With the medicine he is very focused on his work. He thought his last doctor would furnish one more month but she said she couldn't since he had left the state she practiced. He has a doctor's appointment, but the earliest available he could find was next week- after he is out of work.

By the way, both of us suspected he was not in a position to protest, but wanted to ask. He agrees that since he didn't have the meds, that's his problem, but I said I would ask anyway.

Knowing him, he won't protest anyway, but it's always good to know your rights.

Agree with the majority here. This is not any form of illegal discrimination. Under no circumstances is an employer required to accept poor performance, no matter what the condition. And if he COULD be performing but ISN'T because he isn't taking his meds for whatever reason, the employer is entirely in the clear, IMHO.