Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 09-6351

By FindLaw Staff on November 03, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Employees' ADA suit against employer for drug testing policy

Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 09-6351, concerned a challenge to the district court's holding, that individuals do not need to be disabled to assert claims under section 12112(b)(6), in this interlocutory appeal in plaintiffs' suit against their former employer, claiming that the employer's drug testing policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.


In reversing the judgment, the court held that, because the plain text of the statute requires that an individual bringing such a claim be disabled, and this interpretation is not "demonstrably at odds" with Congress's intent, the plain meaning controls.  The court also held that, because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the district court's ruling on their putative claims under section 12112(d)(4) is inextricably intertwined with the certified issue, exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction is declined.

Related Link:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard