There is a lot of confusion out there about whether alcoholism is a disability. Illegal use of drugs gets exempted from the ADA but alcoholism is a different story. True, you can evaluate a person engaged in excessive use of alcohol in terms of performance as if the alcohol use doesn’t exist, but that is an entirely different matter from whether it is a disability. The case of the day explores how alcoholism is an ADA disability in several different ways. It also illustrates how state law and federal law on disability discrimination don’t always match up. The case is Hughes v. Certified Flooring Installation, Inc., decided on October 7, 2025, by the Eastern District of Kentucky Northern Division, here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories, and they are: facts; court’s reasoning that plaintiff plausibly alleged her alcoholism constitutes a disability under the ADA; court’s reasoning that plaintiff’s alcoholism, when inactive, constitutes a disability; court’s reasoning that plaintiff’s employer regarded plaintiff as disabled; court’s reasoning that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

I

Facts

Plaintiff is a recovering alcoholic and has been so for several years prior to beginning work at her employer. While in the throes of alcoholism, she had trouble engaging in daily activities such as concentrating, sleeping, working and taking care of herself. Eventually, she sought and received treatment for alcohol addiction.

Even 19 years sober, her alcoholism still impacts her life in significant ways. More specifically, she avoids exposure to environments where alcohol is consumed, displayed, or encouraged as it presents a substantial risk of relapse that would significantly impair her ability to function, concentrate, and maintain her recovery. Such avoidance is a matter of clinical necessity and never adversely affected her performance as an employee. In fact, she received positive performance reviews, never received a reprimand, and earned a promotion.

She was open about being in recovery as she frequently discussed her sobriety with her peers. When the employer began to hold occasional wine and cheese events at the office to wind down the workday, she had to make arrangement to leave the office early in order to avoid exposure to alcohol. This created tension between the plaintiff and her coworkers, who taunted her for not participating in the events.

In November 2023, plaintiff learned that her employer’s offices would be relocating to another town. The new office sat across the street from a liquor store and above a popular bar. Because working in that environment would involve consistent exposure to alcohol, plaintiff realized that she would need to work from home. She could perform all of the essential functions of her job remotely and had worked from home in the past. Further, other employees holding similar positions worked remotely and the employer’s infrastructure allows her to work from home. So, she requested to work remotely due to her alcoholism.

After making the accommodation request, plaintiff experienced ostracism and exclusion at her employer’s office. She was excluded from meetings, left out of communication, and was the subject of watercooler gossip about her alcoholism and her request for accommodation. Around January 25 of 2024, plaintiff repeated her accommodation request and provided her employer with letters from her health care provider and her sponsor. The letters outlined the threat to her sobriety posed by working at the new location. In February 2024, plaintiff went even further by proposing an alternative accommodation where she would alter her working hours to avoid the bar’s hours of operation. Without granting any of plaintiff’s request, her employer informed her that she would have to submit her accommodation request on her health care provider’s formal letterhead. When she submitted such a request the next day, she was promptly fired.

Although her employer originally informed her that she was terminated because her services were no longer required, weeks later, her employer claimed that she was fired because she used vulgar gestures and language towards the CEO, which she denied.

II

Court’s Reasoning That Plaintiff Plausibly Alleges That Her Alcoholism Constitutes a Disability under the ADA

1. A disability under the ADA, includes any of the following: 1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual; 2) a record of such an impairment; or 3) being regarded as having such an impairment.
2. The amendments to the ADA provide a nonexhaustive list of what is a major life activity. The list includes: caring for oneself; performing manual tasks; seeing; hearing; eating; sleeping; walking; understanding; lifting; bending; speaking; breathing; learning; reading; concentrating; thinking; communicating; and working. 42 U.S.C. §12102(2)(A).
3. Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity gets decided without regards to any mitigating measures per 42 U.S.C. §12102(4)(E).
4. The definition of disability is construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals.
5. An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. 42 U.S.C. §12102(4)(D).
6. The fact that plaintiff’s alcoholism was in remission when she worked for her employer makes no difference to the ADA’s disability inquiry.
7. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a substantial limitation on several major life activities, including: thinking clearly, concentrating, maintaining regular sleep, working, and caring for herself. In fact, her alcoholism so impacted her ability to function that she sought and received treatment for her addiction.
8. The proper question is whether plaintiff’s plausibly alleged that her alcoholism when active (emphasis in opinion), substantially limits a major life activity. The allegations contained in the amended complaint certainly meets that standard.

III

Court’s Reasoning That Plaintiff’s Alcoholism, When Inactive, Constitutes a Disability

1. Plaintiff plausibly alleged that her alcoholism continued to substantially limit at least one major life activity during her employment.
2. For example, plaintiff alleges that when she rearranged her work schedule to avoid being in the office during one of her employer’s wine and cheese events, her coworker taunted her and mock her sobriety. Those facts, informed by the court’s judicial experience and common sense, allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that plaintiff’s alcoholism substantially limited her ability to interact with coworkers at her place of employment. Since plaintiff’s alcoholism need only substantially limit one or more major life activities, that allegation is sufficient.

IV

Court’s Reasoning That Plaintiff’s Employer Regarded Plaintiff as Disabled

1. An employer regards an employee as disabled when it regards her as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities and that the impairment was one with a duration of more (taken directly from the court opinion), than six months.
2. To establish a regarded as claim, a plaintiff must show that she had been subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limit or is perceived to limit a major life activity. (Emphasis in opinion).
3. Plaintiff asserted in her amended complaint that defendant mistakenly believed her condition rendered her unfit for the workplace when in fact that was not so.
4. Plaintiff alleged that her employer was well aware of her disability and her status as a recovering alcoholic. In fact, the steps she took to maintain her sobriety were public knowledge at her employer’s office.
5. When plaintiff learned of her office’s new location, she requested permission to work remotely, more than a month prior to her termination. She even repeated that request three weeks later and provided her employer with letters from her healthcare provider and sponsor. According to the plaintiff, those letters outlined the detrimental effects that working at the new location would have on her continued sobriety given the consistent exposure to alcohol that she would have to endure.
6. The amended complaint also alleges that her employer required to resubmit her accommodation request on her healthcare provider’s formal letterhead and then it promptly fired her when they received that request. In short, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that her employer was aware of her alcoholism and the manner it impacted her life and work and that her employer terminated her employment as a result of her alcoholism.
7. Plaintiff alleges that her status as a recovering alcoholic was common knowledge to her employer and to its employees. It also plausibly alleges that her employer knew of the limitations her alcoholism placed on her ability to interact with others. It also alleges that her employer received multiple letters from her healthcare provider and her sponsor describing her alcoholism and the limitations it would have on her ability to work at the new location.
8. Plaintiff also alleged that she was terminated as a result of her request to accommodate her alcoholism by working remotely or altering her hours.
9. All of these facts plausibly state a claim that her employer subjected the plaintiff to an action in violation of the ADA because of the employer’s perception of her alcoholism.

V

Court’s Reasoning That Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act

1. While the Kentucky Civil Rights Act in many ways tracks the ADA, it contains a specific exclusion for current or past alcohol abuse problems from the definition of disability. As such, the Kentucky Civil Rights Act claim fails from a plain reading of the statute.
2. While courts often interpret the Kentucky Civil Rights Act in harmony with the ADA, such an interpretation has to go by the wayside when the text of the act parts ways with that of the ADA.

VI

Thoughts/Takeaways

1. State laws and the ADA frequently act in harmony with each other. However, there can be differences going either way. In this case, we see how a disability discrimination law at the state law level is actually narrower than the ADA. In other cases, such as the situation we discussed here, the state law may have broader protection than the ADA. Another example, is that state antidiscrimination laws might have differences with respect to how many employees an entity have to have in order to be covered. So, when it comes to disability discrimination laws, you always want to be aware of state laws as well, assuming they exist at all.
2. This case makes clear that a recovering alcoholic is a person with a disability in several different ways: 1) actual disability; 2) regarded as strong; 3) episodic disability; and I would argue, though not explicitly addressed by the court, a record of a disability as well. The case also makes clear that a person consistently using alcohol to excess (an alcoholic not in recovery), is a person with a disability as well (though it is worth pointing out that such a person can be evaluated as if the alcoholism doesn’t exist).
3. Precise and detailed pleadings in ADA matters is always very helpful on the plaintiff side.
4. A cautionary tale for employers that have events incorporated into their culture involving alcohol. Be prepared to make reasonable accommodations for those who don’t drink or have issues with alcohol abuse either currently or in the past. Also, this case illustrates that should such individuals seek to abstain from such events because of their aversion to alcohol for whatever reason get ostracized by employees, the employer will face trouble. This is especially an issue in the legal profession where drinking is very much a part of the culture. In fact, lawyers are the number one profession for those struggling with problem drinking with an estimate of 20% of lawyers being in that category.
5. Although timing of the termination was not discussed in the opinion, the fact that the employer fired her the day after receiving supporting documentation from plaintiff on the form they requested, certainly was not helpful to the employer.
6. The court assumed without deciding, that in office attendance was not an essential function of plaintiff’s job.
7. Shifting reasons for termination are never helpful to the employer.
8. You only need one major life activity to be substantially limited in order to get coverage under the ADA.
9. The six months exception only applies to regarded as claims not to actual or record of claims. Also, the six months exception, unlike what the court says, is six months or less and not more than six months. Further, the disability also has to be minor as well for this exception to apply. See 29 C.F.R. 1630.15(f).
10. The court’s discussion of regarded as is very confusing as the case law cited by the court is contradictory. For regarded as claim after the amendments, a plaintiff only has to show that the employer perceived a physical or mental impairment. A plaintiff does not have to show that the employer also perceived a substantial limitation on a major life activity.
11. An actual disability can be for less than six months if it substantially limits a major life activity.
12. After Muldrow, which we discussed here, one wonders if ostracism and the other conduct of the employees would not constitute an adverse action.