When the Employer Plays Doctor

The Associated Press has a fascinating story of a lawsuit being brought against UPS by a former employee who was ordered by UPS to stop taking a legally prescribed medication for anxiety. The story reveals that the employee had completed an alcohol treatment program (and thus likely qualifies as an individual with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act). Suffering from anxiety and depression, the employee took low doses of a medication prescribed by her personal physician. Apparently UPS’s Employee Assistance Program forced the employee to reveal that she was taking the drug, which showed up on a drug screening. (Drug screening generally focuses on searching for illegal substances, but that’s matter for a separate blog.) As the employee’s attorney puts it, the message being sent to UPS is simple: “Stop playing doctor.”

There are several interesting components to this dispute. Does taking the specific anxiety medication put the employee (a package sorter) at immediate risk for injuring herself or causing harm to others? (If there is no “immediate risk”, the company has no business proceeding any further!) Does the company have a right to over-rule the employee’s own doctor? Is the treatment for alcoholism a factor in the company’s position? Has UPS compromised the integrity of the employee assistance program by using it to force disclosure of private medical information in this manner?

Ultimately, the courts will decide if UPS exceeded the bounds that constrain employers in private medical matters. LynchRyan believes in trying to resolve these issues before they reach the courts. This is usually a matter of keeping the lines of communication open. If an employer has concerns about the potential side effects of a medication that may directly impact safety, they should sit down with the employee to talk about it. With the employee’s permission, they should discuss their concerns with the employee’s personal physician. In most cases, the personal physician is in the best position to determine the degree of safety exposure. The bottom line is simple: employers must narrowly limit their focus to the potential impact of medications on the employee’s ability to perform the job safely. They have no business venturing beyond that point.