Peter Mauerhan worked as a sales representative for Wagner, Inc. In 2010, Mauerhan voluntarily enter into a outpatient drug rehabilitation program. The program met in the evenings and did not interfere with Mauerhan's work schedule, but Wagner was aware of his participation in the program. On June 20th, 2011, Wagner asked Mauerhan to take a drug test. Mauerhan admitted that he would test positive for drugs but also submitted to the test. He was fired that day for violating Wagner's drug policy, but was told by one of his superiors that he could return to Wagner if he could get clean. On July 6th, 2011, Mauerhan entered an inpatient drug rehabilitation program. Upon entering, he tested positive for cocaine and THC (marijuana). He completed the program on August 4th, 2011. A report issued by his rehabilitation counselor described Mauerhan's recovery program at discharge as "guarded". The day after he completed the program, Mauerhan contacted Wagner and asked to return to work. Mauerhan was told that he could return to work, but that he would not receive the same level of compensation as he had previously received or be able to service the same accounts he had prior to his discharge. Mauerhan refused to accept these new terms and declined Wagner's offer. Mauerhan filed suit against Wagner, alleging employment discrimination in violation of ADA. Is his suit likely to be successful? Explain your answer. (Mauerhan V. Wagner Corp.)