Man claims failure to 'urinate on demand' cost him his job

A former North Branford public works employee is suing the town for terminating his job after he was unable to take drug tests due to a medical condition that prevents him from being able to “urinate on demand.” Daniel Pond, who was a Public Works highway employee from 2002 until he was fired in 2009, filed the suit this month in New Haven Superior Court. He has another pending case against the town concerning a union grievance he filed in 2009 for being fired, and though decisions have been made in his favor by the state’s Department of Labor Board of Mediation and Arbitration, the town has appealed them twice, with the latest appeal being made this month.

The suit Pond filed this month says that Pond has never had “any sort of problem” with alcohol or drugs and that his medical issues came into play in February 2008 when he was required to take a drug test by urinating into a container. Court documents concerning his union grievance state that Pond was ordered to take the drug test in order to return to work after being out on worker’s compensation. He asked instead for a blood test because of his “medical disability” and informed the town of the issue, but his request was refused, the lawsuit says.



“The plaintiff suffers, and at all relevant times suffered, from documented medical disabilities, of which the defendant was fully aware, which make it virtually impossible for him to urinate on demand and severely limit his ability to urinate under any circumstances,” the suit reads. Despite drinking “very large quantities of fluids,” Pond was still unable to take the urine test, according to the suit. Because he couldn’t take the test, Pond was required to participate in a drug treatment program. In May 2009, Pond was again told to take a drug test by urinating into a container. After explaining his disability and asking instead for a blood test, his request was denied.

Pond then left the waiting room area to phone his wife to tell her about the situation. Court documents relating to Pond’s grievance say that if a person leaves the waiting area of a drug testing facility before taking a test, the facility is to cite the person for failing. In June 2009, Pond attended a pre-termination hearing where he was told that his second failure in May to take a drug test was considered a second violation of the town’s drug-free policy. Pond was fired days later. “The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment because of his alleged ‘failures’ of drug tests which in fact were solely because of his disability and the defendant’s refusal to accommodate same,” the lawsuit says. Pond is asking for a remedy of at least $15,000.