A.D.P. began working for the company that would eventually become ExxonMobil in 1978. She performed her job very well and was subsequently promoted to a position of senior research associate in 2005. Shortly after being promoted, A.D.P.'s husband passed away. A.D.P. became depressed. However, her work performance did not change and was still as strong as ever. A.D.P. voluntarily informed another employee of ExxonMobil that A.D.P. was going to seek treatment for her alcoholism. Upon returning to work, A.D.P. was subjected to random breathalyzer tests in keeping with company policy, even though A.D.P. had never been documented as being under the influence of alcohol at her job. A.D.P. passed the first nine breath tests that were administered to her. The tenth test estimated her blood alcohol content at 0.047 and 0.043. A.D.P. was then fired by ExxonMobil. A.D.P. brought suit against ExxonMobil for discrimination on the grounds of her disability. The appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, A.D.P., after a state court had dismissed the case. How is A.D.P. covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act if she is not handicapped? Were there grounds for breathalyzer testing of A.D.P. based on her work performance? Explain. Why do you think the appellate court found in her favor? A.D.P. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, 54 A.3d 813 (N.J. Super. App. 2012).