Background

• Seven former Dura Automotive employees challenged the company's drug-testing policy at the Lawrenceburg, Tennessee facility under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Dura's policy screened for twelve substances, including those found in common legal prescription medications, and treated use as potentially unsafe for safety, property, or performance reasons.
• Each employee tested positive for a prohibited substance while holding a legal prescription; Dura offered transition to non-prohibited drugs but rejected doctors' letters about performance impact and terminated those who persisted.
• The district court granted summary judgment that a non-disabled individual could pursue a §12112(b)(6) claim and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.
• The court of appeals addressed whether §12112(b)(6) requires a plaintiff to be a disabled individual, reversing the district court.
• The panel held that §12112(b)(6) protects only 'qualified individuals with a disability' and thus non-disabled employees may not bring these claims.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Fuzy v. S & B Eng'rs & Constructors, Ltd., 332 F.3d 301 (5th Cir.2003) (supports view that non-disabled cannot pursue §12112(b))
• Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1992) (plain meaning controls in statutory interpretation)
• United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (plain meaning and legislative intent considerations)
• Henry Ford Health Sys. v. Shalala, 233 F.3d 907 (6th Cir.2000) (read statute with straightforward meaning)
• Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1987) (different language in different parts of an act should be given effect)
• Boise v. Capital Area Cmty. Servs., Inc., 188 F.3d 506 (6th Cir.1999) (discussion on scope of §12112(d) claims)