Talmadge v. Stamford Hosp. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION – ADA

Talmadge v. Stamford Hosp., No. 3:11-cv-01239-WWE (D. Conn. May 31, 2013)

An OR nurse was caught stealing narcotics while working.  The nurse was able to retain his license if he took a leave of absence and participated in a rehabilitation program.  That rehab program required him to sign an agreement that he would not have any access to narcotics or return to working as a nurse in an operating room, procedure room, or recovery room without the approval of the rehab program.

The nurse then applied to work at the defendant hospital.  After meeting with the nurse, the defendant hospital decided not to hire him.  The nurse filed suit against the defendant hospital in federal district court for the district of Connecticut claiming he was denied employment due to his past drug addiction in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

The hospital argued that the nurse was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.  While the court stated that it was “skeptical of whether plaintiff demonstrated that his addiction substantially limited one or more major life activities,” this issue was found to be moot since the nurse failed to show that he was a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

In order to establish a claim under the ADA, the nurse was required to show that he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.  Since the nurse was not cleared to access narcotics or return to an operating room environment until after the defendant hospital’s employment start date, the court found that he was not qualified to perform the necessary duties of the job.  Further, the court held that no reasonable accommodation could have been made for an operating room nurse who could not work in an operating room.  The court also reasoned that subsequent communications between the two parties regarding reconsideration of the nurse’s initial application could not be considered as new applications for the position.  As such, the district court granted the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment.