United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library

NOTICE: THIS INDEX WAS PREPARED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FOR INTERNAL USE. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CASES, AND WAS LAST REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 1996.

Return to Table of Topics, 503 Index

The legislative history of 1978 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act, makes it clear that Congress intended for rehabilitated alcoholics to be covered by the Act. OFCCP v. Exxon Corporation, 92-OFC-4, ALJ Rec. Dec. and Order, June 15, 1993, slip op. at 23; affirmed, Administrative Review Board Final Decision and Order, October 28, 1996, at 5, fn.8.

Section 706(8)(c)(v) of the Rehabilitation Act, (which excludes from protection current alcohol users who cannot perform the job or who poses a direct threat to property or safety of others), does not apply to complainant who had undergone alcohol rehabilitation and, who according to medical experts, had a strong recovery, currently does not use alcohol, currently continues to attend support groups meetings, and whose alcohol use has never interfered with the successful performance of his duties in any job. Id. at 23-24; affirmed, Administrative Review Board Final Decision and Order, October 28, 1996, at 7.

"Individual with handicaps" includes any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; (ii) has a record of such impairment; or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment. Id. at 24; affirmed, Administrative Review Board Final Decision and Order, October 28, 1996, at 4.

The complainant (a recovering alcoholic) is not substantially limited in any major life activities by his impairment in that he does not currently use alcohol, did not consider himself handicapped, none of his major life activities are substantially affected by his alcoholism (other than his ability to hold the 1600 jobs from which the contractor excludes alcoholics), and alcohol never affected his work in any way. Id. at 24-25; reversed, Administrative Review Board Final Decision and Order, October 28, 1996, at 8-9.

Complainant's chronic knee condition led to numerous surgeries and complications including osteoarthritis and connective tissue abnormalities, as well as hospitalization for each surgery and absence from work for lengthy periods in order to recuperate. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Arline, the ALJ held that complainant's extensive medical history was more than sufficient to establish that his impairment substantially limited his major life activities for many years, that he had a record of an impairment regardless of lack of current work restrictions and therefore, he must be considered a handicapped individual. OFCCP v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), 92-OFC-5, ALJ Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting in part Defendant's Motion in Limine, April 23, 1995, at 4-5.

Complainant's history of myopia (which lead to the RK surgery) creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he has a record of impairment. OFCCP v. United Airlines, 94-OFC-1, ALJ July 20, 1995, Order at 3.