A federal appeals court held on February 14, 2014 that an employer did not retaliate against an employee when it discharged him for refusing to submit to a drug test after he initiated the filing of a workers’ compensation claim.  Phillips v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC, No. 13-2199 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

Phillips was required to submit to a drug test after stating his intention to file a workers’ compensation claim.  The Company’s written substance abuse policy required drug testing upon initiation of a workers’ compensation claim, among other circumstances.  The policy also provided that refusing to test was grounds for termination.  Phillips was informed that he had to submit to a drug test before he could submit his workers’ compensation claim.  He refused because he did not think that drug testing should be a consequence of filing a workers’ compensation claim.  His employment was terminated.

Phillips filed an action alleging retaliatory discharge.  To prevail, he needed to prove that his discharge was causally related to his pursuit of a workers’ compensation claim.  The lower court held that he could not do so, and the appellate court agreed.  It was undisputed that Phillips was discharged because he refused to submit to a drug test, not because he filed a workers’ compensation claim.  Moreover, the Company terminated other employees who refused to test, and did not discharge other employees who filed workers’ compensation claims.

Phillips further argued that the Company’s drug testing policy discouraged employees from filing workers’ compensation claims.  However, Phillips could not identify one employee who was discouraged from filing a workers’ compensation claim due to the drug testing requirement.  Additionally, the court noted that this discouragement argument was in tension with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, which expressly contemplates drug and alcohol testing in connection with workers’ compensation claims.  Moreover, workplace drug testing is not against Illinois public policy, because the state’s medical marijuana law and its Human Rights Law both provide that employers may adopt and enforce drug testing policies.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kathryn J. Russo Kathryn J. Russo

Kathryn J. Russo is a principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws, as well as…

Kathryn J. Russo is a principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws, as well as substance abuse management and marijuana laws’ impact on employers.

Kathryn helps clients navigate workplace problems involving drugs and alcohol. She regularly works with corporate counsel and human resources executives to develop substance abuse policies to comply with federal drug and alcohol testing regulations (including all agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation), as well as state and local drug and alcohol testing laws and marijuana laws in all 50 states. In addition, she defends employers in litigation where drug and alcohol test results are at issue, and frequently conducts “reasonable suspicion” training for employers in connection with their substance abuse policies. Kathryn also advises employers on leave and disability management issues arising when employees seek leave or other accommodations related to substance abuse rehabilitation.