42 U.S.C. § 12210

Illegal use of drugs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

For purposes of this chapter, the term “individual with a disability” does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use.

(b) Rules of constructionNothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to exclude as an individual with a disability an individual who—(1) has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no longer engaging in such use;(2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in such use; or(3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but is not engaging in such use;except that it shall not be a violation of this chapter for a covered entity to adopt or administer reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in paragraph (1) or (2) is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs; however, nothing in this section shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, restrict, or authorize the conducting of testing for the illegal use of drugs.(c) Health and other services

Notwithstanding subsection (a) and section 12211(b)(3) of this title, an individual shall not be denied health services, or services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation, on the basis of the current illegal use of drugs if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services.

(d) “Illegal use of drugs” defined(1) In general

The term “illegal use of drugs” means the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.]. Such term does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health care professional, or other uses authorized by the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law.

(2) Drugs

The term “drug” means a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 812].

(Pub. L. 101–336, title V, § 511, formerly § 510, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 375; renumbered § 511 and amended Pub. L. 110–325, § 6(a)(2), (3), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3558.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 101–336, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 327, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12101 of this title and Tables.

The Controlled Substances Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(1), is title II of Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§ 801 et seq.) of chapter 13 of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of Title 21 and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 511 of Pub. L. 101–336 was renumbered section 512 and is classified to section 12211 of this title.

Amendments

2008—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–325, § 6(a)(3), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 12211(b)(3) of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–325 effective Jan. 1, 2009, see section 8 of Pub. L. 110–325, set out as a note under section 705 of Title 29, Labor.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: James v. City of Costa Mesa, 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James v. City of Costa Mesa, 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (d)(2). We therefore conclude that the cities’ interpretation of the statutory text is the more persuasive, though we agree with the dissent that the text is ultimately inconclusive.”

Mx Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (b). 3 Moreover, by including recovering drug addicts among those to be protected under the ADA, Congress recognized “that many people continue to participate in drug treatment programs long after they have stopped using drugs illegally, and that such…”

State v. Adrian Hazard, 68 A.3d 479 (R.I. 2013). · cites it 2× “‖ quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (d)(1)). Finally, the legislative history of the Firearms Act further rebuts the inference of meaning created by the last antecedent rule.”

RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of DuBois, 754 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (emphasis added). The language in Subchapter I refers to “employees or applicants” while the language in Subchapter IV uses the broader term of “individual.”

Adkins v. Excel Mining, LLC, 214 F. Supp. 3d 617 (E.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (a) (“[T]he term ‘individual with a disability’ does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use.”

Marla James v. The City of Costa Mesa, 684 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (a) (the illegal drug use exclusion applies only “when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use”).”

New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (a); 29 U.S.C. § 705 (20)(C)(i).”

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002). “See 42 U.S.C. § 12210 (a) & (b) (1994); Collings v.”

Caron Found. of Florida, Inc. v. City of Delray Beach, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Before considering the merits of the motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court will address Caron’s standing.”

Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 931 F. Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “1 “Disability” is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major *231 life activities of [an] individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(A). Persons recovering from or receiving treatment for addiction to alcohol or drugs are disabled…”

Wormley v. Arkla, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 1079 (E.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 12210 (a). An employer may discharge a person who is currently illegally using drugs on the basis of the drug use without incurring liability for discrimination under the ADA.”

Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven, Connecticut, 129 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Conn. 2001). “Plaintiffs assert that by virtue of defendants’ refusal to consider and apply the FHAA and ADA in interpreting and applying the Connecticut Fire Safety Code and the State Building Code, defendants have prevented Oxford House, Inc., from establishing and maintaining recovery…”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 12210(b) — 1 case

Judy Shaw Found. v. City of Howard, South Dakota (D.S.D. 2026).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.