By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In Jeannot v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit of a Police Officer who sued his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act for retaliating against him because he had a disability. The Court dismissed Jeannot’s lawsuit because he did not prove that he had a disability that would qualify for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jeffrey Jeannot had been a Police Officer with the Philadelphia Housing Authority for several years. While on patrol with another Officer, Jeannot stopped into a pharmacy to fill a prescription for Adderall. Jeannot was prescribed Adderall by his doctor “so that he could maintain focus necessary for him to perform his duties as a police officer.” Jeannot had previously informed his supervisor that he took Adderall, however had not articulated to his supervisor that such use was for a specific medical condition. Jeannot had also not requested any form of accommodation under the ADA Later, Jeannot’s superiors apparently became suspicious, and required him to submit to a drug test. Jeannot was then suspended from his job for drug use. He filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He argued that his concentration issues were a condition that qualified as a disability, that he was nevertheless qualified to be a police officer, and that his employer suspended him because he was disabled.The Philadelphia Housing Authority argued that the Court should dismiss the lawsuit because Jeannot had not provided any evidence that he really had a disability. The Housing Authority made this argument in two ways. First, they argued that Jeannot had not shown that he had an “actual” disability under the ADA’s statutory definition of a disability. Second, the Housing Authority argued that there was no apparent evidence of a disability that would have independently put them on notice that Jeannot was disabled. The ADA requires either actual notice of a disability or implied notice through some reasonably observed behaviors or interactions such that the employer can be deemed to have “regarded” an employee as disabled. The Housing Authority argued that neither standard was present and /or these reasons, the Housing Authority argued that the Court must dismiss Jeannot’s lawsuit.
It should come as no surprise that the Americans with Disabilities Act only applies to people who have disabilities. The purpose of the law is to protect against discrimination, so it also protects people who are “regarded as” disabled by their employers, whether they are truly disabled or not. In this case, the Court agreed with the Housing Authority, and ruled that Jeannot had not offered any evidence that he had a disability. The Court acknowledged that he had been prescribed medication, but this did not prove that Jeannot was disabled under the ADA. It also did not prove that the Housing Authority “regarded” Jeannot as disabled. As the Court explained:
Jeannot fails to provide any factual allegations that he suffered from an impairment. The most Jeannot alleges regarding an actual disability is that he was prescribed Adderall. At no time, however, does he actually allege that he has problems focusing or maintaining concentration.
The Court was also unconvinced that the Housing Authority “regarded” Jeannot as having a disability:
Jeannot’s claim hinges on the mere fact he allegedly gave his supervisor a note that stated he had a prescription for Adderall. From there, his theory makes the leap that because the Defendants knew he was taking Adderall, they necessarily regarded him as being impaired in thinking, focusing, and maintaining concentration.
The take-away from Jeannot v. Philadelphia Housing Authority is clear: without more, evidence that an employee takes Adderall is not enough to show that person is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order for a litigant to prevail in an ADA case, there must be some record of disability that has been documented such as a doctor’s note to accompany the prescription that explains the need for the medication and advises the employer of a possible need for an accommodation. Under the ADA, employers are not obligated to guess—nor would we as public employee attorneys want them to!
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on the issue of DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
