Obama Administration sues truck company for firing alcoholic driver

No way in the world that would fly. If the rules are so over bearing the person can always quit and seek treatment and a job elsewhere. The company isn't forcing them to drink, that's a personal choice. I agree the better option is to help that person, but that's not what's happening in many cases and there is nothing illegal about it. In your scenario if the alcoholic claimed it was the companies fault he kept drinking he should be laughed out of the courtroom and probably would be. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for your own actions instead of always looking for someone else to blame. If you lose your job because your an alcoholic it's your fault. If you fail a drug test at work and get fired it's your fault.

 

You're right. We should let sex offenders be teachers too. How about drug addicts as pharmacists. At some point you have to use a little common sense. If it was my business, and most businesses who have employees with CDL's, I would imagine there is a length process to go through.

Common sense folks.

 

of course it is the person's drinkings responsibility. i have been closely associated with both recovering and practicing alcoholics and addicts. i am far from stupid about the subject.

but i never underestimate a good litigation attorney and the stupidity of juries. if a person drinking gets in a wreck and hurts someone, then it comes out in court that the person drinking wanted to seek help but was afraid they would lose their job if they did so, because i discriminate against those seeking help, you bet i would be sued. the drunk, or their victim, would be able to claim that my discriminatory business practices of firing or demoting on the basis of seeking help made the drunk not seek help because they had a family to feed, yada yada. that i dont punish drinking, i punish getting sober. yes, i can see a jury eating that shyt up. hot coffee anyone?

but losing a job because of practicing alcoholism, and losing a job because of seeking help are two different things. the strength it takes for a person to come forward and to say "i need help doing this" are not small. that person is going to be much less likely, imo, to do something like drive drunk, or be dragging in late or not be productive because of a hangy, than someone who even just considers themselves a "social drinker". as a business person, i am not going to demote or fire for the wanting to seek help. not only am i doing that person a disservice, i am shooting myself in the foot in terms of the type of person i am employing.

we obviously disagree. i have explained the best i can and i am not one to keep hammering on a subject in which i have explained how i feel. agree, or disagree, that is why.

 

Speaking up as an HR rep, but unless this company employes fewer than 15 people, they are subject to the ADA under which alcoholism is considered as a disability.

It is unlawful to take adverse employment action against an employee who has notified you that they have a problem and who are actively seeking treatment. A demotion would be considered an adverse employment action, for sure. DOT has stricter regulations when it comes to drug and alcohol abuse, and since I'm not in a transportation industry, I'm not overly familiary with those specific regulations, but I don't think the suspension of driving privileges was the problem here.

The term "reasonable accommodation" is inserted into the ADA. Courts do not usually find creating new positions in order to accommodate a disabled to be reasonable. So if a part-time $12/hr job was all they could offer him and he refused it, the termination could be considered valid. But the company will have to prove that there were no other reasonable options.

HOWEVER, if he were caught under the influence at *any* point in time while he was on the clock, it would be immediate grounds for dismissal. Just because an employee is seeking treatment, it does not give him/her a free pass for bad behavior on the job, whether related to the disability or not.

I may have to keep my eye on this case.

 

And the Dems wonder why business hates them.

 

i dont think this is a political thing. in fact i think ADA is a bush sr thing.

 

No, the *massive* expansion under the Obama Administration of what a disability is under the law is why businesses hate them.

Practically anyone can claim some sort of disability.

 

I don't have an issue with ADA. I just don't think wino is a disability.

 

Alcoholism has been a disability since at least the early/mid 80's.