Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
127 F.3d 270 (1997)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Dan Buckley (plaintiff) was a Con Edison (defendant) employee who had undergone treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. Con Edison required its employees to submit to random drug tests once every five years. However, drug addicts were required to submit to testing once a month. In June 1994, Buckley was told to report to a medical facility for a drug test. Buckley was unable to produce a urine sample because he suffered from a neurogenic bladder, which made urinating on command or in public very difficult. Buckley asked for more time to produce the sample, but his request was denied. Con Edison fired Buckley because he was a former drug addict who had failed to provide a urine sample in the allotted time. Buckley sued Con Edison for violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), noting his history of dependence on drugs and alcohol in his complaint. The court dismissed Buckley’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Buckley appealed. Buckley conceded that a neurogenic bladder was not a disability under the ADA but argued that being a recovering drug addict was a disability under the ADA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Calabresi, J.)
Dissent (Kearse, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
