Choosing to reject a job applicant who uses illegal drugs is assumed to be within the rights of an employer, but what about a candidate using methadone as a treatment for addiction? In a recent class action lawsuit, the EEOC sued a business for rejecting a candidate solely on the basis of their use of methadone to treat a past drug addiction. As a result of this lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that refusing to hire a methadone user in a similar situation violates the ADA.
Understanding the ins and outs of governmental rules and employment regulations can be understandably tricky, but reviewing some prominent legal cases often sets a clear precedent for the limits and extent of the rules. Wrightway Ready-Mix, LLC, and Wright Concrete & Construction, Inc., the two businesses at the center of the lawsuit, stand as an example of how hiring discrimination against methadone users who are recovering from addiction can prove to violate key laws that US businesses are expected to operate under.
The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against a company for refusing to hire a methadone user relying on it as a treatment for opioid addiction. (Image: Pexels)
Exploring the EEOC’s Stance on Hiring Methadone Users in 2025
The EEOC’s lawsuit against construction companies Wrightway Ready-Mix, LLC, and Wright Concrete & Construction, Inc., sets a clear precedent for how to navigate the hiring of candidates who rely on Methadone as a part of their rehab processes. The issue began when a job seeker approached a Wrightway facility in Delbarton for a laborer role and was asked to name any medications he was on.
The job seeker was soon informed that the company would not hire him as it had a long-standing policy against hiring job seekers who relied on medication and other similar substitutes. The candidate confirmed the reason for his rejection with the on-site head of human resources and heard the same response. The dejected candidate then took the case to the EEOC to explore what options were available to them.
How Does Refusing to Hire Methadone Users Violate the ADA?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a key piece of legislation that protects the employment rights of workers with disabilities or mental and physical impediments that often limit their access to opportunities. While addictions are not always treated as a disability, they do often limit the user’s options and impair them to a degree. Those in recovery may free themselves from a portion of the addiction, but medications often help make the transition more successful.
Methadone is often recommended as a medication that former substance users can rely on during their recovery from their addiction. The EEOC’s decision to sue the concrete company emerged from the understanding that the conduct in hiring here was a violation of the job seekers’ rights under the ADA. The commission also added that the ADA does not allow employers to inquire into the existence, nature, or severity of a disability before they have made an offer.
Additionally, as per the ADA, employers also cannot set criteria to screen out candidates with said disabilities unless the qualification is job-related or essential for them to perform their role, consistent with business necessity. The methadone pre-hire question, as a result, was a violation of the ADA, even before the rejection of the candidate.
What Did the EEOC Have to Say About the Hiring Discrimination in Relation to Methadone Use?
The EEOC lawsuit against the concrete companies is clear-cut. The commission reportedly attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement first, but the lack of conciliation led them to take the next step.
“To observe the federal mandate to provide equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities, employers cannot impose unlawful barriers to entry for workers with records of opioid addiction — including workers who are taking methadone and other medications as part of their recovery,” EEOC Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said as part of the EEOC’s notice on the case.
She also added that “The EEOC is committed to protecting workers in addiction recovery from disability discrimination, especially those in labor markets that have been severely impacted by the opioid epidemic.”
Understanding and Following State and Federal Regulations Is a Core Business Consideration
The EEOC’s stance on the hiring of methadone users in 2025 is not new, however, we’ll have to follow the progression of the case to determine the final results of the lawsuit. Interestingly, this isn’t the first time such a case has made its way to the EEOC. In 2016, the EEOC aided another job seeker who was enrolled in a methadone treatment program to win a settlement against staffing firm Randstad. The case was similar in nature, emerging as a result of a job seeker being refused employment due to their medication use.
These cases make it evident that relying on an employee’s history as grounds for rejection needs to be navigated carefully, particularly when they fall under the umbrella of the ADA. Asking employees for the history of medication use and relying on pre-employment drug screenings is also within an employer’s rights, but this often comes at a later stage, after the candidate has been made an offer. Even in this case, refusing to hire a candidate for their methadone use violates the ADA.
Looking for updates within state and federal regulations in the realm of employment is an essential part of running any business. It is similarly important to consult with legal experts who can bring such previous precedents to light to ensure the business is aware of how these regulations are relevant to their operations.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
