Alcoholic Employee

T

I have an ee who is suspected of drinking before work?

Our policy states "reporting to work under the influence of illegal drugs or liquor, possessing or bringing intoxicating beverages or illegal drugs onto the premises can be terms for immediate dismissal".

We do no testing, so how do I determine if the allegations are true? I also just recently discovered that this ee is going to AA meetings. How do I handle this? Do I have to keep her employed? Am I under an obligation to "help" her get better? ADA is also on her side, isn't that correct?

Thanks.

rad

ADA is on her side if she is a recovering alcoholic, not if she's coming to work drunk.

deniseE

Alcoholism is protected under the ADA. Do you have an employee assistance program to which you can refer the employee?

Forget that you know about AA...that is supposed to be confidential. Take only what you can see on the surface. Bringing this to the ee's attention must be done with caution...perhaps they are ready to admit to the problem and begin working on a solution....

Does she exhibit any other work related issues??? That can also be a jumping off point for discussion/disciplinary action.

sonny

As Denise says focus on what you see. . .the behavior. . and address that. .

Don D

T: Here are the problems I see in your post. First, the subject of your post is 'Alcoholic Employee'. I see absolutely no basis for that conclusion. If you are basing that assumption on your 'discovery that the employee is going to AA meetings' you have no basis. I have spoken to AA groups for years as a guest speaker on the subject of 'Job search, Resume Preparation and Marketing Your skills'. I have also spoken twice at treatment center 'graduation ceromonies' where typically only graduates and family members are allowed in the room. Several years back I even appeared in a Santa Claus outfit at two annual AA Christmas parties and handed out gifts to each in attendance, noticing many people whom I knew, but nevertheless maintaining their anonymity. I wonder who might have assumed what about me as they saw me leaving the building?

Second, you indicate the employee is 'suspected of drinking before work'. By whom, based upon what, with what evidence as witnessed by whom and reported to whom?

Finally, I infer from your post that you may be entertaining the idea of getting rid of the employee based on your assumptions and conclusions, none of which may be valid and any of which may be meaningless and probably are meaningless as relates to that employee's ability to do the job.

On the other hand, if you have hard evidence of alcohol use while on duty or shortly before reporting to work, you should react in accordance with your policies. Best practice requires that a supervisory level employee, preferrably two, who have been trained in recognizing the signs of alcohol and drug use and abuse, would observe and record the behavior according to standards and the company would review and consider that evidence before proceding. Please don't let your personal conclusions about alcoholism decide your course of action. Lastly, don't forget that this individual, if a recovering alcoholic, is a qualified individual with a disability who has the protections of the ADA. I don't suggest for a moment that if she/he is, that the ADA protects him/her while reporting under the influence.

And don't forget the 'anonymity thing'. The way I always looked at it, the anonymity belonged to the alcoholic and was not mine to give up. And the only time I ever gave it up was once when the individual had died and it was the right thing to do at the time. Good luck.

sonny

Well said, I have become too lazy to go into one of my tirades..thanks.

Balloonman

I have a pocket full of pennies today so I feel I must add to this. Also make sure you can either have testing brought in or have the ability to take a person for testing if it is determined that you need to at some point take this person, or someone else in for testing.

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman
Performing at the Lenexa Spinach Festival this Saturday.

Memorable Under the Influence Incident................Phone rang at 2:47 am........DJ ....we have an employee we suspect is under the influence....(me not wanting to go in) Oh what makes you think he has been drinking? Well he smells of alcohol, is swaying when he walks......and has a 40 oz bottle of beer in his coat. Okay, I be there in about 15 minutes.............

Yahoo

Balloonman - I only WISH I was free Saturday not only to see you perform, but to witness the spectacle of what must be the Lenexa Spinach festival. x:D

Balloonman

I don't know if Popeye will be there but I hear Olive Oil is gonna be there. x:D I am also performing at a private party that night, but that is by invite only.

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

POPEYE

Is it going to be fresh or canned spinach???????

Balloonman

Fresh spinach Popeye! Here is the link!

[url]http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/parks/spinachfestival.html[/url]

Lenexa used to be the "Spinach Capital of the World" back in the 30's.

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

Crout

And the fact that you do no testing means that you need to change your policy so you CAN send a suspected employee for testing. As Don said, you have absolutely no proof.

Hunter1

Don said it during his post, but it's buried in there somewhere: You have a policy against reporting for work under the influence. If the employee shows signs of being under the influence, have two (if possible) trained supervisors observe her and if they come to the conclusion that she's under the influence, call her into the office, inform her of your suspicions, and offer her an alcohol test. If she refuses, discipline her for what your trained observers have concluded; if she agrees, get the test and deal with the results. Give her an opportunity to tell you that she has a medical problem. "Is there any medical circumstance or other condition that we should be aware of?" If she tells you she's a recovering alcoholic, boom, you're in a different ballgame, otherwise, proceed. Good luck

Hatchetman

Firstly, ADA does NOT identify that alcholism is automatically disability. Courts have held that it may be for an individual but that would need tobe medically diagnosed and meet the same criteria that any other medical condition would have to meet to be a disability under ADA.

Second, once it is medically diagnosed and assuming it then constitutes a disability under ADA, there is NO requirement in ADA or EEOC regulations that the employee go through rehabiltaiton in order to be considered "disabled" or "protected." Alcoholism in this regard is treated differently from drug addition which is addressed specifically in ADA and does require that the indivdual either be going through rehabilition or have completed rehabiltion in order to be consdered "protected" against illegal discrimination because of a previous addiction problem.

As with drug addiction though, if an emplyee reports to work in an impaired conditin because of alcohol or drinks on the job, the employer may take appropriate action, consistent with its policies and practices, to counsel, discipline, or terminate the employee. ADA doesn't prevent the employer from adopting policies that prohibit drinking or impairment on the job because of alcohol even if the emplyee is "ADA-disabled."

Last, there is no requirement in the federal Drug Free Workplace Act that an employer have a mechanism for testing if the employee is intoxicated on the job. And certainly the issue isn't that the employee had any alcohol in his "system" but rather the impairment in functioning that truly determines if the emplyee is intoxicated.

Before the concept of testing arose, it was traditional for employers to assess the condition of the employee against the common traits of being intoxicated -- smell of alcohol, slurred speech, staggered gait, unsteadiness, etc., as well as impairment in job functioning. Of course, some of these characteristics may not appear, so some individual-related behavior may have need to have been considered, such as the conduct in relaitn to previous known incidents of intoxication. I don't believe that an employer is prohibited from making a reasoned and documented call of "intoxciated" on the job on that basis. I believe in California, for example, the law specificaly provides that any indivdual may attest to another person being intoxicated after observing the other person if the individual has some knowledge of conditions exist when people are intoxicated. Of course, if the employee is arguing that its some form of medication and not alcohol that is causing the impairment that may take more investigaiton.

System

I'm not sure what Hatchet's post says, but, it remains a fact that if 'T' regards the ee as being handicapped and regards him as alcoholic and ADA protected and assumes him to be a qualified individual with a disability, then he is one. What I read in the original post says these conclusions have been drawn. I see no way to wiggle around it. And why would the man not be? I suggest you treat him as ADA protected and proceed accordingly rather than wrapping yourself into a birdsnest of govern-ment-ese that will paralize you.

Hatchetman

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-05-03 AT 10:06AM (CST)[/font][p]I was responding to what appears to be the general misperception that ADA requires the employee with alcoholism to have to go through rehabilitation in order to be considered "disabled" under the law. It does not. ADA only speaks to drug addiction and does require the emplyee to go through rehabilitaiotn in order to be considered a disabled emplyee due to addiction.

Regarding, "T's" company treating or regarding this emplyee as disaled, I don't see from what T posted that to be the case.

The only information is that the employee appears to be going through a alcoholism rehabilitation program. I assume it approved time off under FMLA or that the employee had taken some "personal" time off that would have been approved whatever the reason.

LindaS

How has her performance been at work? Does she have an attendance problem? As another poster asked, who is the person doing the suspecting? Do you have an EAP? Although your policies do not state that testing is mandatory, if you or another trained supervisor, observe her actions and determine that she may be under the influence, offer her the opportunity to have an alcohol test taken. If she refuses, follow whatever your normal discipline process is. If she accepts, take her to have the test taken and make sure you give her a ride home. I have heard more than one story wherein an employer sent an EE for a drug or alcohol test, allowed them to drive themselves, and the EE was in an accident.

Neither ADA nor FMLA provide an employee with any type of protection for reporting to work "under the influence" nor do they mandate an employer "excuse" an absence due to an employee being intoxicated.

I have had several instances where employees have come to me DAYS AFTER an incident to tell me that they "suspected" an employee of coming to work under the influence. By that time it was way too late to do anything regarding that incident although I did find myself coming to work early on several occasions to make a determination whether or not the employee was actually intoxicated (the days they were coming in in that condition were always the day after payday).

Deal with what you observe, not what you have heard.