Discuss the below:
Q: Robert Maddox served as an assistant football coach at the University of Tennessee. The university did not know that he was an alcoholic with three arrests, two of which involved alcohol, prior to his employment by the university. On May 26, Maddox, while intoxicated, backed his car across a major public highway at a high rate of speed and was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and public intoxication. This incident received considerable attention from the regional press. Thereafter, the university investigated the charges and then sent him a written notice of termination, stating three reasons for the university's action:
(1) his criminal acts,
(2) the bad publicity, and
(3) the university's determination that Maddox no longer possessed the qualifications necessary to serve as an assistant football coach. Maddox brought an action against the university, alleging that his termination was discriminatory because of his alcoholism and thus violated his rights under both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. In support of his action, Maddox alleged that the drunk driving incident constituted a causally connected manifestation of his alcoholism. In response, the university filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it had terminated Maddox for his misconduct rather than his disability. Can a person have a disability because of alcoholism and thus be within the protection of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA? Under a different scenario, suppose the athletic director (AD) indirectly found out that an assistant football coach was an alcoholic through admissions made by the coach at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and when confronted by the AD, admitted to having a history of excessive use of alcohol. Could the AD terminate the at-will assistant coach based on the individual's own admissions? How would you decide the Maddox case under the two disability acts? [Maddox v. University of Tennessee, 62 F.3d 843 (6th Cir.)]
Book: LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW by David P. Twomey