By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owen
In Young v. Town of Bar Harbor, a District Court found that a former police chief was able to bring a claim against the Town of Bar Harbor for violating his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. In his complaint, the police chief alleged that he had been wrongfully discharged after disclosing his alcoholism, which was perceived as a disability, and that the Town had failed to reasonably accommodate him and violated his FMLA rights. The District Court found that the police chief had a valid claim for wrongful discharge due to a perceived disability and interference with his FMLA rights, but dismissed his other claims.
Nathan Young served as the Chief of Police of the Town of Bar Harbor from 1991 to January 2014. In May 2013, during a conversation unrelated to Young’s performance, Young disclosed to the Town Manager that he was an alcoholic. On January 22, 2014, the Town Manager terminated Young’s employment based upon an investigation that determined that Young was intoxicated during work hours.
Young eventually brought a lawsuit against the Town. In his suit, he claimed that his due process rights had been violated and that the Town had violated his rights under the ADA when it denied him reasonable accommodation and terminated him based on a perceived disability. He also brought a number of claims under state law and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Young claimed that the Town Manager and Council regarded him as disabled due to his alcoholism; they did not reasonably accommodate him; and that he was terminated because of his disability. The District Court found that the Town did regard Young as disabled due to his alcoholism. Therefore, the Court allowed Young to continue with his claim of disability discrimination against the Town.
The Court also examined Young’s claim of violation of his FMLA rights. To have a valid claim under the FMLA, Young had to show that the Town interfered with his right to FMLA leave and his right to return to the same position after the leave. In support of his claim, Young argued that he was denied the right to return to his job after taking FMLA leave to treat his alcoholism. The Court found that this was sufficient to support his claim of interference with his FMLA rights.
Under the ADA, an employer can discriminate against an employee if it “regards” the employee as disabled, even if the employee isn’t disabled. Here, the employer regarded the Chief as disabled due to his alcoholism even though he wasn’t disabled. Because they terminated him based upon his “regarded as disability”, the employer was on the hook for violation of the ADA.
Under the FMLA, the employee who goes on protected leave has an absolute right to be returned to the same position after the leave. The same position can include the same shift, the same hours, the same work conditions, and the same work duties. Where, as here, the employer terminates someone after their FMLA leave, it is on the hook for an FMLA violation.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination . **
