## Facts

- Donald Teaford applied for a production-laborer job at Hussey Copper’s Pennsylvania mill; the company treated all such jobs as safety-sensitive.
- Hussey extended a conditional offer contingent on a post-offer physical examination and drug test.
- Teaford was a recovering narcotics addict participating in a clinically supervised methadone maintenance program.
- Teaford’s urine test was positive for methadone; he had not initially disclosed the methadone treatment during the exam.
- After a phone conversation, Hussey’s physician concluded Teaford’s methadone use impaired cognitive function and created a safety risk for safety-sensitive work.
- The physician did not personally examine Teaford, conduct cognitive testing, or consult Teaford’s treating providers or clinic, and relied largely on generalized views about methadone.
- Hussey rescinded the conditional offer because it considered all available positions safety-sensitive.
- The EEOC presented expert testimony and medical literature indicating stable, monitored methadone patients generally do not have cognitive impairment or heightened safety risk.

## Issues

1. Whether Teaford was covered by the ADA under the “record of” disability or “regarded as” disability prongs based on his history of addiction and methadone treatment.
2. Whether Hussey established the ADA “direct threat” defense as a matter of law.
3. Whether Hussey’s safety-based exclusion was supported by an individualized assessment using reasonable medical judgment based on current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence.

## Decision

- The court denied Hussey’s motion for summary judgment.
- Genuine disputes of material fact existed on whether Hussey regarded Teaford as disabled and/or whether Teaford had a record of a qualifying impairment.
- Genuine disputes of material fact existed on whether Teaford posed a direct threat and whether Hussey’s medical evaluation met the ADA’s individualized-assessment requirement.
- Conflicting expert and medical evidence about methadone’s functional effects precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Former drug addiction may qualify as an ADA-protected impairment when it substantially limits a major life activity and the individual is not currently engaging in illegal drug use.
- An employer “regards” an individual as disabled when it treats the individual as disqualified based on perceived impairment rather than actual, individualized limitations.
- The ADA permits exclusion for a “direct threat” only where the individual poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.
- A direct-threat determination must be based on an individualized assessment grounded in reasonable medical judgment relying on current medical knowledge and/or best available objective evidence, not generalized assumptions about a treatment class.
- Where the employer’s medical basis is contested by competent expert testimony and literature, the factfinder must resolve credibility and weight.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the EEOC’s ADA claims to proceed because a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Hussey’s methadone-based exclusion reflected perceived disability and that its asserted direct-threat justification rested on generalized views rather than an individualized, evidence-based medical assessment.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Hussey Copper Ltd., 696 F. Supp. 2d 505 (W.D. Pa. 2010)