Employees' ADA suit against employer for drug testing policy
Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 09-6351, concerned a challenge to the district court's holding, that individuals do not need to be disabled to assert claims under section 12112(b)(6), in this interlocutory appeal in plaintiffs' suit against their former employer, claiming that the employer's drug testing policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In reversing the judgment, the court held that, because the plain text of the statute requires that an individual bringing such a claim be disabled, and this interpretation is not "demonstrably at odds" with Congress's intent, the plain meaning controls. The court also held that, because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the district court's ruling on their putative claims under section 12112(d)(4) is inextricably intertwined with the certified issue, exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction is declined.
- Read Sixth Circuit's Full Decision in Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 09-6351