Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Ky.: Alcoholic, fired after seeking telework to avoid being near bar, advances claims, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She also claimed her coworkers ostracized and excluded her from meetings and group events after she arranged to leave the office early on days when the company hosted “wine and cheese” events.

A longtime recovering alcoholic, who claimed that maintaining her sobriety required that she avoid exposure to environments where alcohol is “consumed, displayed, or encouraged,” and was allegedly ostracized and fired because she asked to work remotely or alter her hours after the office moved to a new location that was above a popular bar and across from a liquor street, beat a motion to dismiss her ADA claims since she plausibly alleged that both her active and inactive alcoholism were disabilities and also that she was regarded as disabled. However, a federal court in Kentucky tossed her claims under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act since the state law explicitly excludes “current or past... alcohol abuse problems” from the definition of “disability” (Hughes v. Certified Flooring Installation, Inc., No. 25-45-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2025)).

Alcoholism. In June 2020, the employer hired the employee to work out of its office in Hebron, Kentucky. Although she was 19 years sober, her alcoholism continued to impact her life in significant ways. Specifically, maintaining her sobriety required that she avoid exposure to environments where alcohol is “consumed, displayed, or encouraged.” Such exposure presented a substantial risk of relapse and would significantly impair her ability to “function, concentrate, and maintain her recovery.” Despite taking these steps to maintain her sobriety, she received positive performance reviews and, in May of 2023, earned a promotion.

Avoided “wine and cheese” event. Her recovery was no secret in the office, and she freely discussed her sobriety with her peers. When the company began to host occasional “wine and cheese” events at the office, she make arrangements to leave early to avoid exposure to alcohol. This created tension between her and her coworkers, who allegedly taunted her for not participating in the events.

Seeks telework after relocation. In November 2023, she learned that the office was being relocated to another town and that the new location was across the street from a liquor store and above a popular bar. Because working in that environment would involve consistent exposure to alcohol, on January 2, 2024, she requested to work remotely due to her alcoholism. After the accommodation request, her colleagues allegedly excluded her from meetings, left her out of communications, and made her the subject of gossip.

Terminated. On January 25, she provided letters from her health care provider and her sponsor which outlined the threat to her sobriety posed by working at the new location. In February, she proposed an alternative accommodation whereby she would alter her working hours to avoid the bar’s hours of operation. On February 21, the employer told her she must submit her accommodation request on her health care provider’s formal letterhead. After she submitted the paperwork the next day, she was fired. Though the employer allegedly told her that her services were no longer needed, it later allegedly falsely claimed she was fired because she used vulgar gestures and language toward the CEO.

Lawsuit. She filed the instant action alleging claims under the ADA and the KCRA. The employer moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that she failed to plausibly allege she was disabled under either federal or state law.

Alcoholism as disability under ADA. Federal courts routinely find that alcoholism can qualify as a disability under the ADA, as amended by the ADAAA, when it “substantially limits” a major life activity, explained the court. Here, the employee plausibly alleged that her alcoholism constituted a disability under the ADA. The employer’s assertion that her alcoholism did not affect any major life activities during her employment, because her alcoholism had not been active for over a decade, improperly framed the issue. Rather, the proper question was whether she plausibly alleged that her alcoholism—when active—substantially limits a major life activity, and she met that burden by alleging that her active alcoholism substantially limited her ability to “think clearly, concentrate, maintain regular sleep, work, and care for herself.” Indeed, she claimed her alcoholism so impacted her ability to function that she sought and received treatment for her addiction.

“Inactive” alcoholism also a disability. She also plausibly alleged that she was disabled due to her status as a recovering addict. In particular, she claimed that this status required her to avoid “environments where alcohol is being consumed, displayed, or encouraged” to prevent relapse, including the company-sponsored “wine and cheese” events during work hours. This inability to participate in these events due to her disability created a fractious relationship with her coworkers, who taunted her and mocked her sobriety and excluded her from meetings, work communications, and group events. These facts allowed the reasonable inference that her alcoholism substantially limited her ability to interact with her coworkers, reasoned the court.

Regarded as disabled. She also plausibly alleged that the employer violated the ADA by regarding her as disabled. Importantly, she alleged that her status as a recovering alcoholic was common knowledge among the company and its staff, and that the employer knew of the limitations her alcoholism placed on her ability to interact with others. Moreover, she asserted that she provided multiple letters from her healthcare provider and her sponsor describing her alcoholism and the limitations it would have on her ability to work. Finally, she alleged that she was terminated as a result of her request to accommodate her alcoholism by working remotely or altering her hours.

Failure to state a claim under KCRA. However, because the KCRA explicitly excludes “current or past... alcohol abuse problems” from the definition of “disability” under that Kentucky statute, and because she alleged that she was disabled under the KCRA solely due to her alcoholism, she failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

The case is No. 25-45-DLB-CJS.

Judge: Bunning, D.

Attorneys: Samantha Bela Isaacs (Finney Law Firm) for Traci Dephew Hughes. Theresa Lynn Nelson (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for Certified Flooring Installation, Inc.

Companies: Certified Flooring Installation, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims KentuckyNews