Bollinger Shipyards, a prominent maritime construction and repair company, is embroiled in a legal battle with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which has filed a lawsuit alleging that the company unlawfully disqualified five prospective employees due to their legally prescribed medication use. The suit, filed on October 1, 2026, centers on allegations that the shipyard’s post-offer, pre-employment medical examinations were improperly conducted, leading to discriminatory hiring decisions that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
The core of the EEOC’s complaint lies in the process by which Bollinger Shipyards vets its potential hires. Candidates who received a conditional job offer were required to undergo a medical examination administered by a third-party clinic. During these examinations, applicants were asked to disclose all legally prescribed medications and provide their medical histories. The EEOC contends that the medical personnel at this clinic failed to conduct a thorough and individualized assessment of each candidate. Specifically, the agency alleges that clinic staff did not adequately verify the nature of the drug use, such as determining if applicants were currently using all medications listed, if their usage coincided with work hours in a way that could impair performance, the potential side effects experienced, or if the individuals felt capable of performing the safety-sensitive duties of their intended roles.
Crucially, the EEOC asserts that the examining personnel neglected to flag any of these candidates on their medical reports as posing a "direct threat to themselves or others," a designation that would typically be a prerequisite for denying employment based on health concerns. Instead, the alleged disqualifications appear to have stemmed from broad assumptions about the potential risks associated with certain prescription medications, rather than a specific, evidence-based assessment of individual risk.
This is not the first time Bollinger Shipyards has faced scrutiny from the EEOC regarding its employment practices. In September of the previous year, the agency initiated a similar lawsuit against the company for comparable conduct. At that time, a regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham district emphasized the agency’s commitment to rigorously enforcing the ADA, deeming it an "indispensable" piece of legislation for protecting individuals with disabilities in the workplace. The recurrence of such allegations suggests a potential pattern of practice that the EEOC is determined to address.
The Allegations in Detail: A Breakdown of the EEOC’s Claims
The EEOC’s lawsuit outlines several critical failings in the medical examination process. The agency claims that clinic personnel did not engage in the necessary dialogue with candidates to understand the nuances of their prescription drug use. This included failing to ascertain:
- Current Use vs. Past Use: Whether the medications listed were currently being taken or were part of a past treatment regimen.
- Impact on Work Hours: If the timing of medication intake could potentially affect alertness, cognitive function, or physical capabilities during scheduled work shifts.
- Experienced Side Effects: The nature and severity of any side effects the applicants experienced and whether these side effects posed a risk to their ability to perform job duties safely.
- Self-Assessment of Capability: Whether the applicants themselves believed they could safely execute the "safety sensitive" aspects of the jobs they were applying for, which are common in the shipbuilding industry due to the inherent risks of working with heavy machinery, heights, and hazardous materials.
The agency’s position is that the clinic staff acted as gatekeepers, making broad judgments about potential risks without undertaking the individualized assessment mandated by the ADA. This failure to verify and assess individual capabilities, according to the EEOC, led to the unlawful exclusion of qualified candidates solely based on their legal use of prescription medications.
Legal Framework and Precedent: The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including employment. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Crucially, the ADA also addresses pre-employment medical examinations. While employers can require medical examinations after a conditional job offer, the results of these examinations can only be used to disqualify a candidate if the examination reveals a medical condition that would prevent the person from performing the essential functions of the job, or if the person poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of themselves or others.
A "direct threat" is defined as a significant risk of substantial harm. To establish a direct threat, an employer must demonstrate that there is a high probability of substantial harm and that this harm cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. This assessment must be based on objective medical evidence and an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the job. Relying on generalized assumptions about the risks associated with certain medications, without considering the specific circumstances of the individual applicant, is generally considered a violation of the ADA.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 further reinforces protections against discrimination based on disability and other protected characteristics, providing additional avenues for legal recourse when such violations occur.
Context and Broader Implications: Opioid Use and Workplace Safety
The EEOC’s action against Bollinger Shipyards occurs against a backdrop of increasing national concern regarding the opioid crisis and its impact on the workforce. In recent years, governmental bodies have focused on understanding and mitigating the effects of opioid use and abuse in the workplace. The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance aimed at helping employers navigate these complex issues, and initiatives like the Great Recovery Initiative, established during the Trump administration, have sought to address the broader societal challenges posed by addiction.
White House Drug Czar Sara Carter has repeatedly highlighted the administration’s commitment to combating the spread of synthetic opioids, emphasizing the need for a multi-faceted approach that includes prevention, treatment, and enforcement. This focus on the pervasive nature of opioid use underscores the critical importance of ensuring that American workers are equipped with knowledge about drug overdose recognition and reversal.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has also played a role in this effort. OSHA has published fact sheets and resources designed to help employers prepare for opioid overdose emergencies. These materials provide guidance on crucial preparedness strategies, including the proper administration of opioid reversal medications like naloxone and nalmefene, as well as best practices for the storage of overdose kits. The aim is to ensure that workplaces are equipped to respond effectively to potential overdose incidents, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of all employees.
While the Bollinger Shipyards case specifically addresses the use of legally prescribed medications, the broader context of the opioid crisis likely informs the EEOC’s vigilance in ensuring that employers do not make overly broad assumptions about individuals with substance use histories or those taking prescribed medications that may be perceived as high-risk. The agency’s stance, articulated by acting EEOC Birmingham District Director Linda Sales-Long, cautions employers against relying solely on drug manufacturers’ lists of potential side effects as definitive proof that an applicant cannot safely perform a job. Such an approach, she stated, can lead to discriminatory outcomes.
Bollinger Shipyards’ Response and Previous Legal History
As of the publication of this article, Bollinger Shipyards has not issued a public statement directly addressing the latest EEOC lawsuit. However, the company’s previous engagement with the EEOC on similar matters indicates a history of navigating these legal challenges. Companies in industries with inherently high safety risks, such as shipbuilding, often have stringent pre-employment screening protocols to mitigate potential hazards. The challenge, as highlighted by the EEOC, lies in ensuring these protocols are compliant with anti-discrimination laws and are applied on an individualized basis, rather than through blanket prohibitions.
The previous EEOC lawsuit filed in September 2025 would have likely involved extensive discovery and potentially settlement negotiations or a court ruling. The details of that resolution, if any, are not publicly available in the provided information. However, the fact that the EEOC has pursued a new lawsuit suggests that the issues raised in the prior case were not fully resolved to the agency’s satisfaction, or that similar discriminatory practices have continued.
Expert Analysis and Future Outlook
The EEOC’s action against Bollinger Shipyards serves as a significant reminder to employers across all sectors, particularly those with safety-sensitive positions, about the critical importance of complying with the ADA. The lawsuit underscores the need for a nuanced approach to medical evaluations, emphasizing individualized assessments over broad generalizations.
The implications of this case extend beyond Bollinger Shipyards. It signals the EEOC’s continued commitment to vigorously enforcing disability discrimination laws and its willingness to take legal action against employers who fail to conduct proper, individualized assessments of candidates’ ability to perform essential job functions. As the nation continues to grapple with issues related to prescription drug use and the opioid crisis, it is likely that employers will face increased scrutiny regarding their hiring and screening practices.
For Bollinger Shipyards, the path forward involves a robust defense against the EEOC’s allegations or a potential settlement. The outcome of this lawsuit could set important precedents regarding the interpretation and application of the ADA in the context of maritime employment and the use of prescription medications. The case will likely hinge on the specific evidence presented by both parties regarding the nature of the medical examinations, the information available to the clinic personnel, and the specific job requirements at issue.
Ultimately, this legal challenge highlights a recurring tension between the imperative for workplace safety and the legal mandate to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those managing health conditions through prescribed medications. The EEOC’s stance is clear: ensuring safety must not come at the cost of unlawful discrimination.
About the Author
