ILNews

Boulukos: Guiding clients through an executive intervention

March 12, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Manolis Boulukos

In the opening sequence of “Mad Men” – the popular AMC drama about hard-drinking Madison Avenue execs in 1960s New York – we watch as an animated silhouette of Don Draper, the series’ alcoholic anti-hero, plummets from a skyscraper through a kaleidoscope of iconic advertising images. He falls and falls, but we never see him hit the ground. And then, quite suddenly, he is back in his armchair, cigarette in hand. Viewers are left to wonder: When will the hard landing come?

boulukos-manolis.jpg Boulukos

When an executive’s substance abuse triggers a personal and professional free fall, colleagues may be slow to recognize that the bottom is coming – and fast. At some point, and hopefully before permanent damage has been done, the fact that the leader has become a liability is impossible to ignore. But, as critical as it is to acknowledge that a problem exists, that is, to borrow from the vernacular of addiction recovery, only the first step. Deciding to take action is one thing; deciding what action to take is quite another.

One measure some organizations are choosing is the “executive intervention” in which the executive is confronted by colleagues (and sometimes loved ones) and given the choice between treatment or facing serious, employment-related consequences. Traditionally used within the family context, there is evidence that an intervention may be even more effective when tied to the substance abuser’s employment.

Although staging an executive intervention may seem extreme, one need not look far to see how quickly a leader’s misadventures with drugs or alcohol can become a social media fiasco, causing lasting damage to the reputations of both the executive and the organization. Consequently, for an organization concerned about its leader’s substance abuse, the executive intervention may present an appealing option to address the problem before it becomes a full-blown crisis.

Lawyers with clients considering this unconventional approach will certainly want to encourage the client to consult with a substance-abuse expert as to whether an intervention is advisable from a clinical perspective. From a legal perspective, clients will also need to understand the unique legal risks involved in conducting an intervention in the workplace setting.

At the outset, it is clear that taking no action, or ineffective action, to address an executive’s substance abuse entails its own set of legal risks. Officers and/or board members may have an affirmative legal duty to protect the organization and its shareholders from the acts or omissions of the troubled executive. Among other chilling possibilities, their inaction could expose the organization – and, conceivably, officers and board members themselves – to shareholder actions, sexual harassment lawsuits, tort claims alleging vicarious liability or negligent retention, and governmental enforcement actions based on the executive’s neglect of duties.

If the client determines that an intervention is necessary, the most obvious risk from an employment perspective concerns the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, current alcohol abuse may be a covered disability. (In contrast, current illegal drug use is not a disability under the ADA.) Thus, although the ADA allows employers to discipline employees who misuse alcohol in the workplace, an employee suffering the effects of alcohol addiction outside the workplace may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. Generally speaking, the ADA requires that employers provide a qualified employee with a disability a reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, unless such an accommodation would create an undue hardship.

More specifically, the ADA has been interpreted to require the employer to engage in an “interactive process” with a disabled employee to discuss the need for, and contours of, potential accommodations. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the employer may select from among several accommodations that qualify as reasonable, assuming that each alternative is effective. Consequently, an employer whose “bottom line” at an intervention demands only one option for treatment – say a two-week stay in an inpatient facility followed by outpatient treatment and attending group meetings – may violate the ADA’s accommodation requirement by refusing to discuss other alternatives, for example the executive taking a longer period of leave or receiving outpatient treatment only.

In addition, the ADA’s provisions regarding the confidentiality of medical information may come into play. The organization may find itself in a bind when a top leader takes an extended leave and the ADA limits disclosure as to the reason for the executive’s absence. Also, if, in conducting the intervention, the organization treats the executive differently from other similarly situated, non-disabled employees on the basis of his or her actual or perceived disability, or on the basis of another protected characteristic such as race, age or gender, it may face a discrimination claim under the ADA or another anti-discrimination statute.

Beyond employment discrimination concerns, the executive’s employment contract may pose obstacles to forcing an intervention – and, in particular, to any “bottom-line” consequences that may be intended to secure the executive’s cooperation. In the case of an executive with an ownership interest, there is the question of who is empowered by the organization’s corporate governance structure to force conditions of employment on the executive.

Deciding whether to stage an executive intervention involves weighing numerous and complex potential legal risks. Ultimately, of course, the decision is the client’s to make. The role of counsel is to help the client understand and prepare for the legal consequences that may result. Here are a few key legal issues that should be considered when assisting a client in evaluating or pursuing an executive intervention:

1. Advise the client to seek the advice of a professional with expertise in treating substance abuse to determine whether an intervention is an appropriate course of action, and, if so, to guide the client in planning and conducting the intervention.

2. Once there is a preliminary intervention plan, review and identify potential risks – and consider measures to reduce or eliminate them. Make sure that your client has considered what will happen if the executive is not cooperative.

3. In particular, consider whether the ADA will apply under the circumstances, and how that may affect the client’s desired “bottom line” and its plans for dealing with the executive’s absence (if any).

4. Review relevant employment contracts and corporate governance documents to determine their impact on the intervention plan, including, among other things, the organization’s legal ability to remove the executive and the price of doing so.

5. Finally, consider the ethical implications of advising the organization on the intervention, particularly if you have worked closely with the executive in question. This is one of those instances in which asking yourself “Who’s the client?” could be critical in avoiding a professional misstep.•

__________

Manolis Boulukos is an attorney in Ice Miller LLP’s labor and employment group. Manolis advises clients on matters including federal and state litigation, wage and hour issues, and administrative proceedings before the EEOC and NLRB. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT