Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...

conduct rules, for which the employer’s policy could call for the employee’s dismissal. This
result would not violate the ADA.
There are also situations in which meeting qualification standards of DOT safety rules, or
having a valid license or certificate from a DOT operating administration is an essential job
qualification. If a truck driver does not meet FHWA qualification standards to obtain a
Commercial Driver’s License from a state, or if a pilot does not qualify for an FAA medical
certificate, that individual is not a “qualified individual with a disability,” even if the reason for
the failure to meet DOT qualifications is a condition that an employer might be required to
accommodate under the ADA. The legislative history of the ADA specifically recognizes this
special status for DOT qualification standards (see Senate Report 101-116 at 27, August 30,
1989).
Another issue that has been raised in context of the relationship between the ADA and
alcohol testing concerns whether an alcohol test is a “medical examination.” Non-regulatory
guidance issued by the EEOC suggests that “a test to determine an individual’s blood alcohol
level would be a ‘medical examination’ and only could be required by an employer in
conformity with the ADA.” It should be pointed out that this statement does not, at face value,
apply to breath testing (or other methods that do not involve blood samples) for alcohol. The
EEOC has not determined whether it views breath testing for alcohol as a “medical
examination.”
The Department of Transportation takes the position that alcohol testing under the program
required by these rules is not properly viewed as a required medical examination. It is not the
collection of a breath or body fluid sample that makes a test “medical” in nature. The tests in
question are solely for the purpose of determining whether an employee has violated a DOTmandated
safety requirement. The tests are not used for any diagnostic or therapeutic purpose.
They are not intended to ascertain whether an employee has any medical condition, and they will
not be used for such a purpose. Under these circumstances, the policies underlying the ADA
provisions on medical examinations do not apply. Because of the uncertainty that may be
created by the EEOC guidance, however, it is useful to consider the implications of regarding
alcohol tests as “medical examinations.” (The Department is working with the EEOC to resolve
this uncertainty.)
Even if alcohol tests were considered “medical examinations” for ADA purposes, the effects
on compliance with DOT-mandated alcohol testing would be minimal. Medical examinations
are permitted by the ADA if made after a conditional offer of employment. The pre-employment
testing approach set forth in the rules clearly fits this model. For this reason, as well as for
reasons of efficiency, the Department believes that conducting pre-employment testing after an
offer of employment, but before the first performance of a safety-sensitive function, has much to
recommend it. In addition, EEOC has stated to the Department that, because of the statutory
requirement in the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 for pre-employment
testing, EEOC does not object to pre-offer alcohol testing under the DOT rules mandated by this
statute. Other types of testing mandated by these rules, such as reasonable suspicion, postaccident,
and random testing, are likewise acceptable under ADA. (See 29 CFR 1630.15(e),
which makes compliance with the requirements of federal law or regulation a defense to an
Appendix C. ADA Discussion C-5 August 2002