I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position
I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position
I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position
I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position
Other (Explain please)
I think one of the main problems with this, and there are similar ones for a lot of other issues like entitlement programs, is how do you disprove it? Not to say that the disorder doesn't exist. Rather how do you go about showing someone actually doesn't have the disorder and is claiming it to claim the subsequent protections? The frustration I have seen from most people in my experience is not that some people actually need help and need protections when honestly trying to get them, but over those who game the system. And those latter seem to be more and more every day leaving the truly needy still needing.
And no one gets any money from the govt simply for being disabled unless they can show serious impairment.
Alcoholism is a disease (a self-inflicted one at that). It deserves to be treated like any other mental disoder.
"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."
Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?