Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
ADA Claims Aren’t About Perfect Decisions — They’re About Proving Discrimination
When employees allege discrimination under the ADA, it’s their burden to prove bias — not the employer’s burden to defend every business decision. A recent Seventh Circuit case reinforces that when employers apply clear policies consistently, even imperfect decisions won’t amount to discrimination.
TL;DR: An employee who failed a random drug test (because of prescribed medications) and ignored follow-up calls from the medical review officer tried to blame his employer for disability discrimination. The court said no dice — because the adverse action wasn’t “because of” his disability, but because of his failure to act.
The facts
A police officer tested positive during a random drug screen. But he had prescriptions — ADD meds and painkillers — that explained the result. The medical review officer (MRO) tried three times to contact him for verification. No answer. So the MRO reported the positive test.
When the employer confronted the officer, he agreed to complete a rehabilitation program and waived his right to challenge the result. Later, after the MRO retroactively cleared him, the employer still held him to the rehab agreement. Because decision-makers believed that his removal from service had triggered his decertification as a police officer, they reassigned his beloved canine handler role to another officer.
He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming he was discriminated against because of his disabilities.
What the ADA actually requires
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability. But to win an ADA discrimination claim, an employee must show that the employer took action because of the employee’s disability — not because of unrelated performance issues or procedural problems. If the employer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision — even if based on a good-faith, but mistaken, belief — and there’s no evidence of bias, the ADA claim fails.
Why the employer won
The court said disability had nothing to do with it. Instead:
- It was the officer’s failure to answer the MRO’s calls that triggered the positive result being reported.
- He voluntarily agreed to the rehab program, waiving his rights. As the Seventh Circuit explained: “Even though [the employer’s] choice may have been inefficient or illogical to an outside observer, ‘[t]his Court has long championed an employer’s right to make its own business decisions, even if they are wrong or bad.'” That principle supported enforcing the rehabilitation agreement even after the later negative test result.
- His reassignment wasn’t discrimination, either — the decision-makers mistakenly believed (in good faith) he had been decertified.
In other words, the employer followed its policies, acted reasonably, and wasn’t obligated to excuse the employee’s own mistakes. Instead:
- It was the officer’s failure to answer the MRO’s calls that triggered the positive result being reported.
- He voluntarily agreed to the rehab program, waiving his rights.
- His reassignment wasn’t discrimination, either — the decision-makers mistakenly believed (in good faith) he had been decertified.
In other words, the employer followed its policies, acted reasonably, and wasn’t obligated to excuse the employee’s own mistakes.
Four key takeaways for employers
1. Clear policies = stronger defenses.
Courts are much more likely to side with employers who have clear, written drug-testing and accommodation policies — and who apply them consistently across the board. Having those policies in place makes it easier to show legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for your decisions.
2. If the ball’s in the employee’s court, don’t chase it.
When your policies put the responsibility on the employee to provide information — whether for a drug test, a disability accommodation, or anything else — stick to it. Courts recognize that due process doesn’t mean spoon-feeding.
3. Good-faith mistakes aren’t discrimination.
Even if leadership misinterprets a technical rule (like assuming decertification after a positive test), a genuine belief — not tainted by bias — won’t support a discrimination claim.
4. Rehabilitation agreements are enforceable.
If an employee agrees to a last-chance deal (like finishing a rehab program after a positive test), courts will generally hold them to it — even if later facts suggest the original problem could have been explained.
But keep in mind: enforceability can depend on circumstances like whether there’s a collective bargaining agreement, whether the agreement was truly voluntary, and whether public safety concerns were involved.
Final thought:
In discrimination cases, it’s the employee’s burden to prove bias — not the employer’s burden to prove perfect decision-making. Clear policies, thorough documentation, and consistent enforcement put you in the strongest position when that burden comes into play.