I just returned (Chicago to see estate planning attorney) but wanted to post the conclusion of this odd legal case: The district court held plaintiff was a current drug user, and, thus, was not protected by the safe harbor provision of the ADA. (Opinion and order, 2.) The district court also held that defendant failed to show a legitimate business necessity for imposing a job criterion that excluded plaintiff from working at the Academy. (Opinion and order, 2.) Plaintiff now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews the lower courts grant of summary judgment. The district court decision to grant summary judgment is subject to de novo review. DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and … the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Federal Rules Civil Pro. 56 (c). This court must decide whether a reasonable juror could find that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact being asserted. if you are in Chicago and looking for a quality Chicago estate planning attorney then I can suggest this firm. For an experienced Chicago Estate Planning attorney contact MRM Law Offices.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The district court did not err in its decision that plaintiff was a “current user” of drugs. It is clear from the legislative intent behind the ADA that individuals who consume drugs weeks or months prior to termination are current drug users, so the district court did not err in determining as a matter of law that the plaintiff was not drug-free for long enough period of time.
The element in dispute in this case is the second prima facie element. This Court should affirm the district court’s decision that the plaintiff is not a “qualified individual with a disability.” The plaintiff argues that he fits within the safe-harbor provision. But the plaintiff is not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the safe harbor provision. The failure to qualify for the safe harbor provision was due to plaintiff’s drug use being too current.