Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Pre-employment screening cannot prohibit use of legally prescribed drugs

Connolly v First Personal Bank, ___F.Supp.2d ___(N.D. Ill. November 18, 2008), is an interesting ADA decision. The court held that the plaintiff, a job applicant who had an offer of employment rescinded after a pre-employment drug test indicated a positive result for a drug legally prescribed to her, may go forward with her claim that the bank violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The theory is that the Bank violated the ADA's provisions limiting pre-employment medical testing based on plaintiffs disability or perceived disability.
At the time of her drug test, the applicant informed the bank president that a recent cervical epidural shot might result in additional medication showing up on the test. After the test showed positive for Phenobarbital, lawfully prescribed to her, the bank refused to allow her to explain the presence of the drug in her system. Although the bank moved to dismiss the claim, the court concluded that the applicant sufficiently alleged that the drug test was used in order to prohibit the use of even legally prescribed medication, without regard to whether such medication would impair her ability to effectively perform her job.

Employment Discrimination | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pre-employment screening cannot prohibit use of legally prescribed drugs:


Of course the woman should be free from having her legally prescribed medications hurting her chances of employment. Background checks are getting out of control.

-John Ogden

Posted by: John Ogden | Jul 18, 2012 1:08:06 PM

Pre employment screening really matter but it should always be in the right place and right time.

Posted by: Rain | Dec 18, 2012 7:43:27 PM

Post a comment