No matter how disgusting a creature you think Charlie Sheen is, his accusations against his former employer who fired him are genius. The guy is actually claiming in a lawsuit filed yesterday he was canned because his managers thought he was disabled. And his bozo bosses actually said as much to him and to the media.

It’s an interesting case that opens up the question of whether an employer can terminate or take any negative job action against a worker that has a disability or is perceived as having a disability. I say perceived because we don’t know for sure what Sheen suffers from. It’s all media speculation at this point. But even if he isn’t disabled under the strict definition of disabled, the law also protects against adverse employment action if an employer just thought a worker was disabled and as a result did something crummy to that worker.

Sheen doesn’t say in his suit that he has a disability, but he does say his employer thought he had a mental and physical disability and thus fired him as a result instead of accommodating his disability, which is required under federal and California law.

Warner Brothers, or WB, the suit states, “has accused Mr. Sheen of having physical and mental disabilities. According to WB health care experts have observed Mr. Sheen in an alleged ‘manic’ and/or ‘bi-polar’ state; other health care experts have described Mr. Sheen as suffering from ‘hypomaniac’ psychological state. WB further claims that Mr. Sheen has had a rapid physical and mental deterioration of his condition. WB bluntly states that Mr. Sheen is very ill.”

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act…

…it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, or sex of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person. FEHA also prohibits an employer’s refusal to select the person for a training program leading to employment or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

Most of what Sheen’s suit addresses in the discrimination allegations has to do with his perceived mental illness. Ironically, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just announced it is going to delve deeper into the issue of bias and mental illness at a public meeting next week because it’s such a huge problem for workers who suffer from such diseases that aren’t as clearly defined as a disability as someone in a wheelchair. (I’ll be blogging next week about the meeting so stay tuned.)

The Americans With Disabilities Act was recently expanded to include a host of disabilities that were not covered before, and mental illness was one that many advocates were happy to see finally clarified.

“In the past 10 years, it’s become extremely difficult for people to use the ADA, particularly to fight workplace discrimination,” said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director for the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

The revision in the law, she added, “will reopen the doors of the workplace to people with psychiatric and other disabilities.”

The other issue is addiction, which is also covered by the ADA. It’s been long reported that Sheen abuses both drugs and alcohol, but even such addictions may not be cause of dismissal if he doesn’t show up at work high. If Warner Brothers fired him for that, they could be in legal hot water.

Again, his dumb bosses actually alluded to this issue in interviews.

In a story last month Hollywood Reporter quoted Chuck Lorre, executive producer of “Two and a Half Men”, as saying,

“I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I don’t do drugs. I don’t have crazy, reckless sex with strangers. If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I’m gonna be really pissed.”

Statements like that from a manager would get HR professionals in Corporate America shaking in their boots, but sorry Hollywood elite, it may not OK in Tinseltown either, depending on the circumstances of course.

Protections for a worker with a substance abuse problem under the nation’s labor laws are not as clear as those for people with disabilities such as blindness or paraplegia.

“The ADA actually treats drug and alcohol abuse somewhat differently,” Chris Kuczynski, an attorney with the EEOC said. “An alcoholic who is currently drinking can be covered, although he or she can be held to the same standards as other workers concerning use of alcohol at the worksite, can be disciplined for violating rules that say employees cannot be working under the influence of alcohol, etc.

“The distinction between drug and alcohol use can be important in some situations, particularly where treatment is concerned. Because persons engaging in the illegal use of drugs aren’t covered and aren’t therefore entitled to reasonable accommodation, an employer doesn’t have to offer them the opportunity to take leave for treatment. On the other hand, because alcoholics who are currently drinking can be individuals with disabilities, reasonable accommodation in the form of time off for treatment may be required.”

If you were a former abuser, an employer can’t hold that against you in most cases.

You’re going to hear a lot of anti-regulation talking heads use the Sheen example as a reason such laws shouldn’t exist, but try to see beyond the rhetoric. It’s unclear whether advocates ever envisioned our laws would protect people like Sheen, but if the facts line up in his favor then he, like any other employee, should prevail in the end no matter who he is, no?