13.251.02 Alcohol addiction or alcoholism

In Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 306 F.3d 1162 (1st Cir. 2002), the court noted that alcoholism is a medical impairment under the ADA; however, the court also noted that alcoholism is not a per se disability under the ADA.

In Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1997), the court declined to adopt alcoholism as a per se disability under the ADA. In addition, the court declined to find that Burch was disabled, regarded as disabled or have a record of a disability. With respect to whether he had a disability, the court explained:

Although Burch's alcoholism may have been permanent, he offered no evidence that he suffered from any substantially limiting impairment of any significant duration.

Burch, 119 F.3d at 316 (footnote omitted).

In Renaud v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 203 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2000), the court noted:

   Several circuits have held that alcoholism is a disability under the ADA. See, e.g., Mararri v. WCI Steel, Inc., 130 F.3d 1180, 1180 (6th Cir. 1997); Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 127 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 1997), vacated en banc on other grounds, 155 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1998); Miners v. Cargill Communications, Inc., 113 F.3d 820, 823 n.5 (8th Cir. 1997); Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 95 F.3d 1102, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 1996); cf. Despears v. Milwaukee County, 63 F.3d 635, 635 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that the parties did not deny that alcoholism is a disability under the ADA). Whether alcoholism is a disability per se may raise additional issues. See Burch v. Coco-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that alcoholism is not a per se disability under the ADA and evidence that alcoholics, in general, are impaired is inadequate to show the substantial limitation of one or more major life activities), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1084 (1998); see also Wallin v. Minnesota Dep't of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681, 686 n.4 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Burch and requiring that a plaintiff show impairment of a major life activity), cert. denied, ___U.S. ___, 119 S. Ct. 1141 (1999); Buckley, 127 F.3d at 274 (citing Burch and requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate both "that he was actually addicted . . . and that this addiction substantially limited one or more of his major life activities").

Renaud, 203 F.3d at 730 n. 3.