## Facts

- Robert E. Maddox III was hired by the University of Tennessee (UT) in February 1992 as an at-will assistant football coach.
- On his employment application, Maddox stated he had no health problems limiting job performance and that he had never been arrested.
- Maddox in fact had prior arrests, including one for drug possession and two for driving under the influence.
- On May 26, 1992, Maddox was arrested for driving under the influence and public intoxication, generating substantial negative publicity.
- Maddox entered an alcohol rehabilitation program; UT placed him on administrative leave and investigated.
- UT discovered Maddox’s undisclosed arrest history and false application responses.
- UT terminated Maddox, citing the DUI-related incident, related misconduct, bad publicity, and dishonesty on his application, and asserting he was no longer suitable for a highly visible coaching role.
- Maddox claimed he was an alcoholic and argued that firing him for alcohol-related misconduct was discrimination based on disability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.

## Issues

1. Whether Maddox was terminated “solely by reason of” his handicap under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or “because of” his disability under the ADA.
2. Whether an employer violates the Rehabilitation Act or ADA by terminating an employee for misconduct (including a DUI arrest and attendant publicity) that is allegedly caused by the employee’s disability.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where the employer asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharge and the employee alleged disability-based causation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UT.
- The court held Maddox was terminated for the DUI-related incident and its consequences, and for misrepresentations on his employment application, not for the status of being an alcoholic.
- The court found no genuine dispute of material fact that UT’s stated reasons were legitimate and nondiscriminatory and that Maddox failed to show pretext.

## Legal Principles

- The Rehabilitation Act requires proof that the adverse action occurred “solely by reason of” the plaintiff’s disability; the ADA requires proof the action was taken “because of” disability.
- Disability-discrimination statutes do not require an employer to retain an employee who engages in job-related misconduct, even if the misconduct is connected to the disability.
- Termination based on a DUI-related incident, resulting adverse publicity for a public-facing position, and dishonesty during hiring can constitute legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharge.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce evidence that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons are a pretext for disability discrimination; a disability-related explanation for misconduct, without more, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court upheld UT’s termination decision because the record showed Maddox was discharged for DUI-related misconduct, adverse publicity, and falsification of his application, rather than because of alcoholism as a disability, defeating liability under both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.


Maddox v. Univ. of Tenn., 62 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 1995)