ADA lawsuit filed against Walmart by RPh

Former Oregon Walmart pharmacist accuses company of firing him for his disability

Apparently this RPH at one time had an substance abuse problem… which from the article:

“At the time of hire, Mr. Doran disclosed to Wal-Mart his history of addiction, the details of his prior addiction-related conduct, the Board of Pharmacy probation, and the terms of his (Pharmacy Recovery Network) treatment plan. Wal-Mart agreed to cooperate with PRN, as Mr. Doran’s employer, regarding the drug tests, restricted hours and supervision, and counseling.”

“About one month after referring to Mr. Doran as ‘a great pharmacist with a wealth of knowledge,’ Wal-Mart terminated Mr. Doran’s employment, citing ‘inability to perform job,'” according to the lawsuit.

The article stated that the RPH got his license in 1980… which if you do the math… he is probably now in his mid-late 50’s

The lawsuit accuses Wal-Mart of citing “inability to perform job” as a pretext for its actual reason for firing him. Doran alleges that Wal-Mart fired him because it instituted a new policy that classified anyone with an addiction or impairment history as ineligible for employment.

In 2007 when this RPh was hired by Walmart there was an acute shortage of RPhs… and discharged in 2011 when the Rph surplus was in full swing..  Does 2 + 2 still equal 4 ???

3 Responses

  1. With a record like that pharmacist had, I would not have hired him. I am surprised that Wal-Mart hired him. There were probably one of two things happened: 1) upper management learned of the pharmacists past history or 2) they changed their policy with regard to hiring. To call substance abuse a ‘disability’ is a bit far fetched. If that is the case, then you could call almost anything a disability. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their lives. And, leaning on being categorized as ‘disabled’, is not going to cut it.

  2. Wow, apparently this is going to be a trend in the field of pharmacy. Already many of those with disabilities are AFRAID to say that they are disabled in any way, with or without accommodation, for fear of being fired for ‘being disabled’. It seems that the system and the federal laws that were meant to protect those that can and want to work, DON’T actually work. And yes it stands to reason that this type of behavior is taking place after the SURPLU began. I wonder how many ‘good’ pharmacists will lose their jobs or choose to burden themselves with more debt because the field is not empathetic to allow them to practice.

  3. Wow, so anyone with ‘disability’ will not be able to work anywhere in Pharmacy as this seems to becoming a common problem. This seems to be a common practice undergoing in pharmacy – many ‘good’ pharmacists will have to take the burden of not only their health issues but the new burden of finding viable employment, which is allowed under Federal Law (and the government demands). There are many people/pharmacist which don’t want to relieve their disabilities for this reason – NO EMPLOYER WANTS TO HIRE ME. I guess ‘numbers’ mean more than paying attention to EEOC laws. And yes it does stand to reason that companies are doing this because of the surplus.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from PHARMACIST STEVE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading