 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Corrections Corp. of America v. Human Relations Commission City of Youngstown9/21/2000
n Memorial Hospital Corp. (4th Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 274, 280. Consequently, such employees are not protected by the statutes; indeed, they are current users explicitly excluded from statutory protection. Id.
At the hearing, Clark admitted to using crack cocaine a few days before July 25, 1997. He was discharged on August 1, 1997, approximately one week later. Therefore, the trial court's determination that Clark was a "current" user is not unsupported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Nor is it unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Furthermore, the trial court's determination that Clark was not participating in a supervised rehabilitation program at the time he was discharged is supported by the evidence. At the hearing, Clark testified that he did not enter a drug treatment program. (Tr. 18-19). He claimed that, subsequent to his discharge, he overcame his drug addiction by attending support group meetings and consulting a counselor from his church. (Tr. 19). Assuming that these meetings constituted a supervised rehabilitation program, the evidence could only establish that Clark attended them after he was discharged. As such, he could not have been protected under the safe-harbor provisions. It therefore follows that Clark was a "current" user excluded from the protection of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
In light of the foregoing, the trial court's decision to vacate the compliance order and dismiss Clark's complaint is supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantive evidence. Appellant's sole assignment of error is found to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Cox, P.J., concurs.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
|