Plaintiff Loses Case Claiming ADA Violation Over Loss of Driving Privileges for DWI Violations

May 2015

By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

An individual with multiple DWI arrests over roughly 16 years, sued the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety claiming that his repeated loss of driving privileges violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This fellow apparently felt so “in the right” that after losing in federal district court he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Alas, he lost again. However, the mere fact that anyone could claim his civil rights are being violated by being taken off the streets as a public safety risk, suggests that our politicians may have gone too far in defining protected individual rights under the ADA. Specifically, when passing the ADA Congress excepted current drug users from its protections but left alcoholism as a protected “disability.” While alcoholism is a recognized medical condition, including it in a law such as the ADA presents many unworkable problems for employers and government agencies alike. Unlike most other civil rights laws, the ADA not only prohibits discrimination of disabled individuals; it also mandates they be provided with “reasonable accommodations.” The concept of reasonable accommodations has never been without its challenges, but it makes sense in the case of most disabilities (e.g. ramps for persons in wheelchairs). Not so when it comes to alcoholism.

The recent court decision does not address what accommodation the plaintiff could possibly have been seeking in this goofy lawsuit. Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit because the plaintiff did not allege he was “disabled.” Presumably, he wanted to be allowed the privilege of driving – and putting others’ lives at risk – despite his numerous DWI arrests. Whether he sought to accomplish this through a legally mandated “accommodation” or by proving his license revocations amounted to disability discrimination, is anyone’s guess. The point is that had this individual sufficiently pleaded in his complaint that he was in fact an alcoholic, the courts would have had to undertake the bizarre task of assessing whether the Commissioner of Public Safety violated his rights by discriminating against a disabled individual, or unlawfully failed to reasonably accommodate his disability.

For now, at least, the citizens of Minnesota and those who drive our state’s roads can be thankful that the plaintiff in this case lost. We can also find some comfort in the hope that had this case gotten past the pleading stage, the courts would have found that allowing someone with this individual’s driving record to continue driving, would not be a “reasonable” accommodation. Let’s all also hope that the repeat offenders of the world are never allowed to hijack a well-intended law such as the ADA, for such an unworthy cause.

Questions? Contact Attorney James Sherman of Wessels Sherman’s Minneapolis office at (952) 746-1700 or email jasherman@wesselssherman.com.