## Facts

- Dan Buckley worked for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. from 1976 until July 1994.
- Buckley was a recovering drug and alcohol addict and had undergone residential treatment in 1991 and 1993.
- Because of his status as a former addict, Con Edison required Buckley to submit to random drug testing about once per month; other employees were tested about once every five years.
- Buckley also had a neurogenic bladder condition that made it difficult to urinate in public or on command and often required several hours to produce a urine sample.
- On June 24, 1994, Con Edison directed Buckley to report for a drug test; he did not produce a urine specimen within the required time.
- Buckley provided a blood sample and later provided a urine sample from a hospital.
- Con Edison terminated Buckley after the testing incident.
- Buckley sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York law, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate based on (a) his record of addiction and (b) his neurogenic bladder condition as it affected compliance with the testing procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether Buckley adequately alleged an ADA-covered disability based on a record of drug and alcohol addiction.
2. Whether subjecting recovering addicts to substantially more frequent testing, while refusing reasonable adjustments to account for Buckley’s urination difficulty, plausibly alleged discrimination “because of” disability and failure to accommodate under the ADA.
3. Whether the district court erred by analyzing only whether the bladder condition, standing alone, constituted an ADA disability and dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held Buckley plausibly alleged ADA coverage as an individual with a “record of” an impairment based on his recovering-addict status.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged discriminatory terms and conditions of employment where Con Edison imposed a heightened testing regime on former addicts and allegedly refused reasonable measures in administering testing despite Buckley’s known limitations.

## Legal Principles

- The ADA’s definition of disability includes individuals with a “record of” a substantially limiting impairment; recovering drug or alcohol addiction may qualify at the pleading stage when adequately alleged.
- ADA discrimination may be shown by adverse treatment tied to disability-based employment conditions (including disparate testing requirements) and by failure to make reasonable accommodations for known limitations.
- In evaluating an ADA claim on a motion to dismiss, a court must consider the relationship among the alleged disability, the challenged policy, and the manner of its administration, rather than isolating one physical condition from the disability-based employment practice.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Buckley plausibly stated an ADA claim by alleging that Con Edison treated him as disabled due to his record of addiction, subjected him to far more frequent drug testing on that basis, and then terminated him after refusing reasonable measures to address his known inability to produce an on-demand urine sample.


Buckley v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 127 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 1997)