The city of Chicago fired Daniel Pernice after he was arrested off duty for disorderly conduct and possessing cocaine. He argued that his addiction was a disability and having drugs was "an integral part" of the disability. But the court said the city was right in firing Pernice for possessing drugs in violation of work rules. Bottom line: If you wouldn't accept egregious behavior from another employee, you don't have to accept it from one who is
an alcoholic or drug addict. (Pernice v. Chicago, No. 00-1865, 7th Cir., 2001)
- Firing a troublemaker? Focus on concrete business reasons
- One rule, two employees, two violations: Document why discipline wasn't identical
- Mandatory firing after year's absence doesn't violate ADA requirements
- Can we really not fire an employee who has been called to jury duty?
- Don't stack the deck in arbitration