Colorado Law Compass

It’s Saturday night.  You decide to head down to the Moose Lodge and have a few brewskis, hang out with your pals, enjoy yourself.  Time to head home.  What?  No, you don’t need a cab.  You’re fine to drive.  Problem is, you’re not.  You rear end another car and send the driver and passenger to the hospital.

What can get worse than that?  You’re the Police Chief.

Yup.  That’s what happened to Charles Budde, the police chief for the Kane County Forest Preserve District.  You cynics might be thinking, so what, he’s a cop.  He’ll get off.  Well, apparently the fine folks in Kane County don’t cotton to their police chief drinking and driving.  They yanked his driver’s license.  Then they canned his ass.

So far, so good.  Only Mr. Budde got his feelings hurt.  How can they do this, he must have thought to himself.  I’m an alcoholic!  I’m disabled!

You know what happened next: he sued.  He argued that the District violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by discriminating against him because of his disability when they fired him; by failing to accommodate his alcoholism; and by retaliating against him for requesting a reasonable accommodation.  The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, and Budde appealed.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment with a succinct analysis:

Based on the record, we find that there were sufficient facts for Meyers to believe that Budde’s misconduct constituted a violation of the District’s SOPs, which warranted his termination. He violated both the SOP that prohibited officers from being publicly intoxicated, as well as the SOP that prohibited employees from violating public laws. As police chief, the District could reasonably expect Budde to refrain from engaging in unlawful activities. We agree with the district court that in choosing to drive while intoxicated and causing a crash that sent two people to the hospital, he failed to comply with the workplace rules, and Budde was no longer qualified to perform his job as police chief.

In addition, both the District and Budde agree that one of Budde’s essential job functions was the ability to operate a vehicle: Budde was the police chief who authored General Order 92-09, stating that the ability to operate a vehicle is an essential job function, and the District provided Budde with a police car to use at all times. Appellant’s Br. at 13-14. The District argues that Budde was not “qualified” because, as a result of his misconduct, his driver’s license was suspended and he could not operate a vehicle. In contrast, Budde argues that “the ability to operate a vehicle” is different from “hav[ing] a valid driver’s license.” Appellant’s Br. at 13.

We do not find Budde’s attempt to draw a distinction persuasive. The only logical reason to require the police chief to have the ability to operate a vehicle is so that he can, in fact, drive the vehicle. And under Illinois law, “no person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds a valid license, permit, or restricted driving per- mit.” Illinois Driver Licensing Law, 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/6-101. Budde’s inability to operate a vehicle is not the result of his disability; it is a consequence of choosing to drive his car after consuming four or five glasses of wine.

The District terminated Budde because of his miscon- duct, not due to discrimination. Budde was not “qualified” to perform his job as police chief, based on his failure to comply with workplace rules and his inability to operate a vehicle. Budde’s claims for failure to accom- modate and retaliation for seeking an accommodation are also without merit.

This case may not answer the question of whether or not alcoholism is a disability, but it does get to the threshold question in an ADA claim: is the plaintiff a “qualified individual with a disability?” A “qualified individual with a disability” is someone who (1) satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of his employment position, and (2) can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired, with or without reasonable accommodation.

If your job requires you to drive, and you’ve lost your license because of a DUI, you’re not going to win an ADA suit.

photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajmexico/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 – that is not Mr. Budde in the above photo.