As other courts have recognized, “employers do not violate the ADA by only entering into return agreements that impose different terms and conditions of employment from those of other workers.” According to the Tribunal, although Ostrowski is subject to different standards than other employees of the company who have not signed an RTA, the difference was due more to his consent than to discrimination on the basis of disability. However, in dismissing the appeal, the Eighth Circle found that Section 12114(c) of the ADA only addresses the types of permitted restrictions that a company may impose on all personnel in the workplace, whether alcoholic or not; However, the ADA does not limit the types of additional restrictions that a party may impose on itself. In other words, Longen separately limited his own behavior when he voluntarily signed the LCA. The Longen Court stated that the restriction of the use of substances changing the atmosphere, including outside working hours, was permissible because Longen had voluntarily accepted it as a condition of his continued employment. According to the ADA, there is a legislative history that indicates that an employer can make work decisions on the basis of alcohol abuse during the period of leave.8 In addition, several courts have recognized a difference between termination of the employment relationship due to disability and dismissal for misconduct and have found that misconduct-induced dismissal is not contrary to the ADA.9 For example, Gosvener signed two separate environmental assessments with the complainant, who twice participated in drug abuse treatment programs before the employer reported him.