Upon relapse, an employee with chronic alcoholism voluntarily signed an EAP Agreement and entered into a separate return-to-work agreement, which agreement described a treatment plan that he was obligated to follow in order to continue his employment. He was subsequently terminated because of his failure to meet with his counselor, per his agreement with the railroad. First of all, the Court determined that the employee could not meet the ADA definition of being disabled. More importantly, even if the Court had found that he was disabled, the employee must demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. Here, however, he was terminated because of a violation of a voluntary return-to-work agreements, and this is not an adverse employment action because of a disability under the ADA. The court, citing other authority, suggested that such agreement are not discriminatory, especially when they are “supported by valuable consideration [i.e. that the employee will not be terminated.]” The employee in this case was guaranteed that he would keep his position at the railroad so long as he met the conditions of the agreement. Buzzard v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (D.C. Minn. 2010).