Drunks on the Job

[bhunter]

From this August 16, 2011, press release by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (HT Reuvain Borchardt):

"Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., a trucking company with a service center in Fort Smith, Ark., violated federal law by discriminating against at least one truck driver because of self-reported alcohol abuse, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. The company should have met its legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while assuring safety, rather than permanently sidelining self-reporting drivers, the EEOC contended."


I think that terminating self-reporting drivers seems unfair; however, I can also see the potential liability for the company. Now, I can't really understand the idea of a lateral move to a desk job as a solution because they are limited in number and a driver likely lacks the necessary skills. Perhaps, the company ought not pursue information on alcohol use from their employees and view such information as private. If the driver fulfills the job requirement and is not intoxicated on the job, then it is ought not be the concern of the employer. This case is interesting because of all the nuances involved between the employed, the employer, and the legal system.

[Oerets]

Are they a non-union shop?




Barney

[JCricket]

Very interesting. I think it is a load of crap that the driver is suing, but I wonder what the LEGAL ramifications are.

So, anyone who wants a free ticket now, claims I am a drinker, and they can't work? I don't think the ADA covers people with a disease, only those who are disabled(partially or totally). Alcoholism can be disabling, and a desease, but where does the line get drawn?

[Oerets]

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/new...?news_id=74613


Is this what you are talking about. The company stated they would never let driver drive again. Even upon the successful completion of a counseling. That was the violation I believe.




Barney

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Oerets

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/new...?news_id=74613


Is this what you are talking about. The company stated they would never let driver drive again. Even upon the successful completion of a counseling. That was the violation I believe.




Barney

That's the problem with shorthand reporting of legal issues. I don't think I have ever talked to a reporter who fully understood a legal issue. There are many many relevant facts that are not reported but can be crucial to the way the case is decided.

For what it's worth, alcohol use does become the company's business, because any interstate truck line is subject to DOT regulation, which includes random drug tests. Alcoholism is a disability within the definition of the ADA, but on the job drunkenness is not. An employee who self reports an intent to enter rehab is protected as having a disability. This provides an incentive for employees to self report and seek help before being discovered as a result of an accident.

Having established that the employee suffers from a disability, it becomes the duty of the employer to seek a reasonable accommodation. Under the circumstances, requiring the employee to successfully complete a rehabilitation program and submit to frequent random drug tests would seem to me to be a reasonable accommodation - more so than an absolute ban on future driving.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That's the problem with shorthand reporting of legal issues. I don't think I have ever talked to a reporter who fully understood a legal issue. There are many many relevant facts that are not reported but can be crucial to the way the case is decided.

For what it's worth, alcohol use does become the company's business, because any interstate truck line is subject to DOT regulation, which includes random drug tests. Alcoholism is a disability within the definition of the ADA, but on the job drunkenness is not. An employee who self reports an intent to enter rehab is protected as having a disability. This provides an incentive for employees to self report and seek help before being discovered as a result of an accident.

Having established that the employee suffers from a disability, it becomes the duty of the employer to seek a reasonable accommodation. Under the circumstances, requiring the employee to successfully complete a rehabilitation program and submit to frequent random drug tests would seem to me to be a reasonable accommodation - more so than an absolute ban on future driving.

Regards,

D-Ray

Does that mean the government will pay me to be a drunk? With food stamps and free medical???

Like FDR said, "Set down on your ass, light up a Camel, this IS the promised land."

I've been doing it all wrong for years!!!

Chas

[JJIII]

Is this April 1st?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Does that mean the government will pay me to be a drunk? With food stamps and free medical???

Like FDR said, "Set down on your ass, light up a Camel, this IS the promised land."

I've been doing it all wrong for years!!!

Chas

That fallacious argument turns the ADA on it's head. The purpose of the ADA is to give more people an opportunity to work. The case is a about an employee who wanted to RETURN TO WORK. People who suffer from a physical or psychological disability - or are perceived as having such a disability - are often excluded from the hiring pool. The law seeks to allow such people to have productive work-filled lives as opposed to living off of disability benefits.

Nothing in the ADA allows you to come to work drunk. Indeed, if one is caught drunk or doing drugs on the job, it is too late to claim addiction as a disability. By protecting self-reporters, however, the law provides people with another incentive to clean up their act. Its a shame to see so much misinformation about a law protecting people who want to lead productive lives.

P.S., I know that you were being sarcastic, Chas, but there are unfortunately far too many people who fail to catch the irony.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That fallacious argument turns the ADA on it's head. The purpose of the ADA is to give more people an opportunity to work. The case is a about an employee who wanted to RETURN TO WORK. People who suffer from a physical or psychological disability - or are perceived as having such a disability - are often excluded from the hiring pool. The law seeks to allow such people to have productive work-filled lives as opposed to living off of disability benefits.

Nothing in the ADA allows you to come to work drunk. Indeed, if one is caught drunk or doing drugs on the job, it is too late to claim addiction as a disability. By protecting self-reporters, however, the law provides people with another incentive to clean up their act. Its a shame to see so much misinformation about a law protecting people who want to lead productive lives.

P.S., I know that you were being sarcastic, Chas, but there are unfortunately far too many people who fail to catch the irony.

Regards,

D-Ray

Well, hell.

And I was just getting ready to fire my ass!!!

Chas

[piece-itpete]

SSI Chas, SSI.

Pete