The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued an oil company, claiming that the company's policy of barring rehabilitated substance abusers from safety-sensitive positions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC challenges Exxon's affirmative defense that its policy is "an implementation of a bona fide occupational qualification." With the foregoing statutory goals and findings as a backdrop, the undersigned finds again that the EEOC's view of safety standards, as set forth in its regulations, constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the Act. The EEOC also seeks to prevent Exxon from presenting its defenses of unclean hands and ratification. Consequently, Exxon's reliance on potential civil and criminal liability, concerns about the environment and its corporate citizenship will not suffice to justify its policy as a business necessity. The EEOC next seeks to bar Exxon from asserting its equitable defenses of judicial estoppel, unclean hands and ratification. The Court turns first to Exxon's judicial estoppel defense.