Do you want drunk truck drivers barreling down the highway? Probably not, but the government does.
That’s a bit of hyperbole, but it’s not an unreasonable interpretation of a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is upset that a trucking company is being intolerant of drivers with alcoholism problems.
This is one of those you-must-be-f-ing-kidding moments, something that only paper-pushing bureaucrats could decide was a good idea.
Here are excerpts about the case. But what you’re about to read isn’t from a critical expose. It’s what the EEOC says on its own website.
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. …Alcoholism is a recognized disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and disability discrimination violates this federal law. The EEOC said that the company violated both the ADA and the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by conditioning reassignment to non-driving positions on the enrollment in an alcohol treatment program. In addition, the EEOC argued that Old Dominion’s policy that bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from ever driving again also violates the ADA. …“The ADA mandates that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to achieve in the workplace. Old Dominion’s policy and practice of never returning an employee who self-reports an alcohol problem to a driving position violates that law,” said Katharine Kores, director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office.
Our tax dollars in action.
I am staunchly opposed to political correctness. However, fact and whole truth is of utmost importance.
Firstly, the driver self-reported the issue.
Secondly, banning driving for life? If a person sought counselling, could they be successful? What’s the probability? According to a quick Google, it’s 40-60% relapse. If a driver maintains honesty, is a lifetime ban still valid?
Thirdly, who shoulders the responsibility for the addiction? Is it really the business owners’ responsibility for better or worse indefinitely?
I apologise for asking questions. I find the “progressives” are a total joke (micro aggressions, seriously? Zero credibility is easily confirmed with these martyrs of self inflicted victimhood). However, if people who critically think (ie. non-progressives) side step important questions, it undermines just how ludicrous the “progressives” are. If your arguments are weak, the progressives will say “see this? The conservatives want us to go back to a time when anyone who had the slightest problem could be sacked, or sidelined for life”. I’m not calling for common ground, I’m calling for rational discourse. I’m not seeing any real thinking here.
I have a confession. I was a liberal prior to political correctness becoming mainstream. When the liberals radicalised, without changing my views, I was rebranded an extreme right wing nutter. Credit goes to Ars Technica, The Verge, Huffington Post, New York Times, etc for their political correctness. Most of these publications had my respect at one time (except Huffington Post and The Verge)
[…] Sounds impossible to believe, but consider the fact that the EEOC bureaucracy in the U.S. went after a trucking company because it didn’t want to employ drunk […]
[…] Sounds impossible to believe, but consider the fact that the EEOC bureaucracy in the U.S. went after a trucking company because it didn’t want to employ drunk […]
[…] Sounds impossible to believe, but consider the fact that the EEOC bureaucracy in the U.S. went after a trucking company because it didn’t want to employ drunk […]
[…] Sounds impossible to believe, but consider the fact that the EEOC bureaucracy in the U.S. went after a trucking company because it didn’t want to employ drunk […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC making it hard for trucking companies to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] the EEOC bureaucrats already have gone after a trucking company that wanted to weed out alcoholics (seemingly a prudent step), I briefly wondered whether these pinheads are trying to tilt the […]
[…] the EEOC bureaucrats already have gone after a trucking company that wanted to weed out alcoholics (seemingly a prudent step), I briefly wondered whether these pinheads are trying to tilt the […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] we shouldn’t laugh too much at the Canadians. After all, the EEOC in the United States made a similar decision restricting the right of a trucking company to weed out a drunk […]
[…] certainly try to do my small part, sharing example of jaw-dropping vapidity by our overseers in government (especially in New York City and […]
And THAT, Steve Howe, is what is special about the federal government: there’s an agency that will take you to court if you employ drivers who drink or who use drugs, and there’s an agency that will take you to court if you try to fire drivers who drink or who use drugs.
It’s not that you are screwed if you do or screwed if you don’t: it’s that you are just screwed.
I’m sure the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ( FMCSA ) is reviewing this very closely. They have some very strict rules & guidelines concerning alcohol & drug use by anyone driving a commercial motor vehicle.
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
US Merchant seamen lose their USCG papers forever for drug abuse
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] more recent years, the pinheads at the EEOC have harassed a trucking company for the supposed crime of discriminating against alcoholics and pushed multi-billion dollar […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC hindering trucking companies from weeding out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] The EEOC hindering trucking companies from weeding out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
[…] Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers. […]
i’m a male and can’t get a job at hooters; therefore i’m filing for disability because i have no hooters and can’t get hired; same government logic
As for the blind truck driver:
The Americans With Disabilities Act was largely written by one blind lawyer. Actually!! The law states that an employer is required to provide a disabled person with a reasonable accommodation in order to enable the person to do the job for which they are hired. This lawyer stated that he would be able to do his job as a lawyer if provided with a reader and a guide/driver, which he felt was a reasonable accommodation for one inn his exalted position.
I actually heard him say that. And he had the weight of federal law to back him up.
After he got the law passed he went around giving lectures to employers abouit what was required of them in order to comply. Penalties for non compliance were very hefty.
Soon afterwards, he quit his job with Dept of Labor and joined a prestigeous law firm sueing employers for non-compliance.
I suppose a truck driver could be blind if he was provided with someone to drive for him.
yet one more reason why about 80% of the federal government need to be eliminated. Will American citizens ever wake up to the tyrany of the federal Levaithan? I say kill the beast!
[…] EEOC rules hindering trucking companies from weeding out drunk drivers (after all, alcoholism is a disability); […]
[…] EEOC rules hindering trucking companies from weeding out drunk drivers (after all, alcoholism is a disability); […]
I can understand the government’s position, but it is the right of the company to enforce it’s policies. If the company defined this prior to employment, it is no different than requiring a certain uniform. He is free to seek employment elsewhere. The “right” to employment is rediculous. Should we have fire fighters in wheel chairs next? How about sex offenders as daycare workers? I think it is great that they kept him on in a non-driving capacity.
[…] Here are excerpts about the case. But what you’re about to read isn’t from a critical expose. It’s what the EEOC says on its own website. via danieljmitchell.wordpress.com […]
[…] clear violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act. Terrible, just terrible. What was this trucker’s disability you ask? Why he’s an alcoholic of course. This brings up several […]
So if you are Old Dominion, you have this choice: don’t let the guy drive and face a suit from the EEOC, or let him drive and risk a charge of reckless homicide or reckless endangerment or some such thing because the alcoholic fell off the wagon right before climbing into the rig.
Perhaps I should see if the EEOC will file a lawsuit for me against Congress. I mean, just because I’ve never been elected doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be allowed to be a Congressman, doesn’t it?
I wonder what Congress was thinking when they made it possible for EEOC to file these lawsuits. If alcoholism is a disability that should not preclude you from working for a trucking company (and eventually get back to driving again) then reasonably you cannot discriminate against a blind man who wants to become a truck driver either. People in wheelchairs should not be barred from becoming life guards.
There was a case a couple of years ago in the District of Columbia where muslims refused to shave their beards before starting to work as fire fighters. Having been a fire fighter I can cvertify that you cannot combine a beard with the face masks that fire fighters have to wear to do their job. But the federal government got involved and claimed that “fire fighters” with a beard could do “other duties” at the site of a fire. The problem is that when you arrive at the scene of a fire, you cannot save the lives of people inside the burning building unless you can send in a team according to very strict safety regulations. These regulations mandate a team of four people to go in and start rescue operations. Two guys go in, two are outside and one operations leader. The two outside have to be able to go in and assist their buddies in a life-threatening situation. Hence you cannot have a single crew member who cannot put on a face mask and enter a burning building. But that was obviously of no consequence to federal bureaucrats…
I wonder if the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would consider STUPIDITY to be a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA)?
Hmmmmmm. . .
So does this mean you can’t fire drug addicts, because that’s an addiction as well? Great…