MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Court, filed November 18, 1996, regarding cross-motions for summary judgment, filed August 23, 1996; objections to the findings and conclusions, filed December 20, 1996, and responses to the objections, filed January 17,1997.

1. BACKGROUND

This is an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") case challenging a blanket exclusion of rehabilitated substance abusers from "safety-sensitive" positions. On June 28,1995, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this lawsuit against Defendant Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"). The EEOC's lawsuit was filed on behalf of Salvatore Filippone, Glenn Hale and other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by Exxon's employment policy because of their participation in substance abuse rehabilitation. On November 15, 1995, Court consolidated a similar complaint against Exxon and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. by plaintiffs Allen Hartman and Alfred Trott challenging Exxon's substance abuse policy as applied to rehabilitated employees. On June 25, 1996, Court granted plaintiffs Mark Cormier and Richard Marque's motion to intervene in the action. Cormier and Marque also complain about Exxon's substance abuse policy as applied to rehabilitated substance abusers. All individuals will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs".

In July 1998, Exxon formally adopted its "Statement of Policy Regarding Employee Alcohol and Drug Use." The policy precludes all employees who currently have a substance abuse problem and all employees with a history of substance abuse from working in a safety-sensitive position. Exxon defines a safety-sensitive position as one where (1) there is a high exposure to catastrophic public, environmental, or employee incident; (2) the person in such position performs a key and direct role in the operating process where failure could cause a catastrophic incident; and (3) there is either no direct supervision or very limited supervision. About ten percent of all positions (or 1,500 positions)are designated safety-sensitive.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the EEOC argues that Exxon's policy is invalid on its face because it violates the ADA by not providing for individualized assessment. Exxon, in its Motion for Summary Judgment, argues that there is an exception to the ADA's requirement where individualized assessment would be impractical or impossible. In addition, Exxon contends that the risk of relapse of any rehabilitated substance abuser is too great for certain types of jobs