Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
124 F.3d 1221 (1997)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Jane Roe (plaintiff) was an accounts manager for Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc. (Cheyenne) (defendant). Cheyenne implemented a mandatory drug and alcohol testing policy and gave employees, including Roe, copies of the policy. The policy prohibited employees from possessing, consuming, or being under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs, controlled substances, or illegally obtained or improperly used prescription or over-the-counter medications during work hours or on company property. The policy further required employees to report all drugs present in their body and to be free of all drug use while on the job; prescribed drugs could be used only upon a supervisor’s approval. The policy also permitted random drug testing. Roe refused to consent to Cheyenne’s policy and filed suit in federal district court, arguing that the policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cheyenne paused implementation of the policy until the court case had been resolved. The district court ruled that the policy constituted a disability-related inquiry and violated the ADA. Cheyenne appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review, and the court addressed Cheyenne’s arguments, including an argument that Roe did not have standing to bring her ADA claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holloway, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.