Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Ockham said:

This is a private company with their own private policies. This could be alcoholism, drug use / abuse or other self administered problem. Second, does a company have a right to put their own policies out especially ones that protect not only their employees but others lives? Think of the lawsuit of a reformed alcoholic who falls off the wagon who was forced to be give the keys by the EEOC policy, who kills a family of three in an accident? Is it a better policy to force the keys back into their hands or is it a better policy to remove that option and keep them employed elsewhere?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Click to expand...

Look ... while of course from what information is provided that company has a right to restrict a person if they are abusing ETOH while working.

However, the most curious aspect is that Fox News chose to say it was the Obama administration suing. That is as factual as trying to imply ... it is the speaker of the house suing this company.

Of course, Fox instead of opening a real discussion on how this ICD dx should be coded and considered for employers ... would instead present such ridiculous opening to their thinly veiled "story" on Obama!

the Obama administration is suing a trucking company for taking the keys away from an Arkansas driver and eventually firing him after he admitted he was battling alcohol abuse.

Click to expand...

Too freakin' funny ... ! Lets see is it Boener's fault or Obama's ... hey Fox News ... you lost credibility in your first sentence. Of course ... what is lost on the viewer is that most people would agree that this company most likely has a valid case. They present a story most could agree with the premise and yet "present it" as Obama is suing the company.

Surely FNN is not insulting the 6th grade education level they try to entice as being that stupid!

The problem with most of the posts that I see here is that folks do not understand the difference between being an alcoholic and acting on being an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic is not a choice. Acting on being an alcoholic is. In this context, at the bare basics of the issue, alcoholism certainly meets the criteria for being classified as a disease. One does not recover. One is always an alcoholic in recovery.

It is certainly discriminatory to prevent an alcoholic in recovery from having a job as a driver. I thought, in this country, we gave consequences for behaviors that were done, not behaviors that we think might happen. Further, non-alcoholics can be risk factors to driving while drunk, also. Prohibiting an active alcoholic... or ANYONE who incurs any kind of alcohol-related driving infraction, makes sense. Preventing someone who identifies having been in recovery for a number of years is idiotic.

Is alcohol abuse a disability; do you agree or disagree with the EEOC?

Being a drunk,junkie, fat ass or any other similar self inflicted condition is not a disability. EEOc should not be hassling companies who are keeping dangerous people off the road.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The problem with most of the posts that I see here is that folks do not understand the difference between being an alcoholic and acting on being an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic is not a choice. Acting on being an alcoholic is. In this context, at the bare basics of the issue, alcoholism certainly meets the criteria for being classified as a disease. One does not recover. One is always an alcoholic in recovery.

It is certainly discriminatory to prevent an alcoholic in recovery from having a job as a driver. I thought, in this country, we gave consequences for behaviors that were done, not behaviors that we think might happen. Further, non-alcoholics can be risk factors to driving while drunk, also. Prohibiting an active alcoholic... or ANYONE who incurs any kind of alcohol-related driving infraction, makes sense. Preventing someone who identifies having been in recovery for a number of years is idiotic.

Click to expand...

What defines an alcoholic?

winston53660 said:

What defines an alcoholic?

Click to expand...

Hmmm... how about this. A pattern of compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol, usually to the detriment of the drinker's health, relationships, and social standing, whereas these things are secondary in nature to the individual's alcohol use. There are some genetic/biological differences, brainwise between an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic. I read a very recent study on this, but I cannot locate it at the present time.

winston53660 said:

What defines an alcoholic?

Click to expand...

Addiction, of any kind, is not WHAT we use but HOW we use it. Unmanageability is the difference between a social drinker/user and an alcoholic/drug addict. An addict/alcoholics "drug of choice" is "more".

CaptainCourtesy said:

Hmmm... how about this. A pattern of compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol, usually to the detriment of the drinker's health, relationships, and social standing, whereas these things are secondary in nature to the individual's alcohol use. There are some genetic/biological differences, brainwise between an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic. I read a very recent study on this, but I cannot locate it at the present time.

Click to expand...

I can see that. I had to give a drunk friend a ride home last night. And it wasn't the first time.

winston53660 said:

I can see that. I had to give a drunk friend a ride home last night. And it wasn't the first time.

Click to expand...

And it won't be the last... or at least the last time he will ask for one. Unless it was either that or he would get behind the wheel himself, you might want to consider not enabling his behavior. Helping him makes it easier for him to drink.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And it won't be the last... or at least the last time he will ask for one. Unless it was either that or he would get behind the wheel himself, you might want to consider not enabling his behavior. Helping him makes it easier for him to drink.

Click to expand...

The guy lived within walking distance and he couldn't even walk home. And to say the least I was not exactly thrilled about interrupting my good time of sitting around and BSing with friends.

So the social thing in your definition definitely applies.

Ockham said:

This is a private company with their own private policies. This could be alcoholism, drug use / abuse or other self administered problem. Second, does a company have a right to put their own policies out especially ones that protect not only their employees but others lives? Think of the lawsuit of a reformed alcoholic who falls off the wagon who was forced to be give the keys by the EEOC policy, who kills a family of three in an accident? Is it a better policy to force the keys back into their hands or is it a better policy to remove that option and keep them employed elsewhere?

Click to expand...

This company policy is actually quite dangerous. Since the issue isn't that the self-reporting drunk won't be allowed to drive, but that they'll be demoted and handed a lower-paying position in exchange for their honesty and their struggle against their addiction, this creates incentive for alcoholics to stay in the closet -- which keeps them on the road, and endangers the rest of us.

Just some food for thought.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The problem with most of the posts that I see here is that folks do not understand the difference between being an alcoholic and acting on being an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic is not a choice. Acting on being an alcoholic is. In this context, at the bare basics of the issue, alcoholism certainly meets the criteria for being classified as a disease. One does not recover. One is always an alcoholic in recovery.

It is certainly discriminatory to prevent an alcoholic in recovery from having a job as a driver. I thought, in this country, we gave consequences for behaviors that were done, not behaviors that we think might happen. Further, non-alcoholics can be risk factors to driving while drunk, also. Prohibiting an active alcoholic... or ANYONE who incurs any kind of alcohol-related driving infraction, makes sense. Preventing someone who identifies having been in recovery for a number of years is idiotic.

Click to expand...

What if someone admits they're a pedophile but they've never acted on it and they're getting therapy for it. Should they then be allowed a job working with children? It's easy to condemn the company, but guess who's going to be liable if the alcoholic gets into an accident. I guarantee that the fact that the company knew a person is an alcoholic when they made him a driver would come out at a trial and it would be held against the company.

BTW, are alcoholics responsible for their choices?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Prohibiting an active alcoholic... or ANYONE who incurs any kind of alcohol-related driving infraction, makes sense. Preventing someone who identifies having been in recovery for a number of years is idiotic.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

What if someone admits they're a pedophile but they've never acted on it and they're getting therapy for it. Should they then be allowed a job working with children? It's easy to condemn the company, but guess who's going to be liable if the alcoholic gets into an accident. I guarantee that the fact that the company knew a person is an alcoholic when they made him a driver would come out at a trial and it would be held against the company.

BTW, are alcoholics responsible for their choices?

Click to expand...

X-Factor hits the point I wanted to make. The company operates in a legal environment beset with precedents where companies have been sued for knowing information and not acting appropriately (decided with the benefit of hindsight) and also for not knowing when they should have known something. The company isn't being idiotic, it's reacting rationally to the legal system which will hold it responsible for its management decisions.

sangha said:

It's bad policy to allow employers to fire employees who seek treatment for addiction because it will discourage addicts from seeking treatment. The end result will be that the addict will continue to hide their addiction and continue driving which endangers the public safety. Employers should be allowed to shift the employee into a job with the closest similar paying job that they are qualified to do even if that means a pay cut

Click to expand...

This position presumes so much. Jobs are usually not vacant and waiting for someone like this to fill them. This job shifting likely entails either a game of musical chairs where people get bumped out of their jobs to make room for this truck driver or it involves some form of inefficient job sharing. If the response takes the form of musical chairs, then innocent people get demoted to lower paying positions. What did they do to deserve a demotion? If the response is job sharing, then the company is being forced to pay for make-work job tasks for this driver. The only fair solution is to offer him the next job opening that becomes available and for which he is qualified. This way no employees have to bear the brunt of being displaced and the company doesn't have to create work, or shift work, for this man to do that was already being done efficiently by other employees.

X Factor said:

What if someone admits they're a pedophile but they've never acted on it and they're getting therapy for it. Should they then be allowed a job working with children? It's easy to condemn the company, but guess who's going to be liable if the alcoholic gets into an accident. I guarantee that the fact that the company knew a person is an alcoholic when they made him a driver would come out at a trial and it would be held against the company.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I am not condemning the company, but I am condemning the dogmatism of just saying, "if you are an alcoholic, even if you do not drink, you cannot drive for our company." Since public risk is the factor, perhaps auto insurance companies should not insure folks who have alcohol dependence as a diagnosis... even if they have never drank and driven. Or, just to make things simpler, any individual with that diagnosis, regardless of behavior, should be prohibited from driving forever. Make sense?

As far as your pedophile example goes, it depends. What is the risk factor? The therapist would be able to determine that and act accordingly.

BTW, are alcoholics responsible for their choices?

Click to expand...

Absolutely and unequivocally.

RiverDad said:

X-Factor hits the point I wanted to make. The company operates in a legal environment beset with precedents where companies have been sued for knowing information and not acting appropriately (decided with the benefit of hindsight) and also for not knowing when they should have known something. The company isn't being idiotic, it's reacting rationally to the legal system which will hold it responsible for its management decisions.

Click to expand...

So, you support the position that one can be given consequences for a behavior that they have not done?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Firstly, I am not condemning the company, but I am condemning the dogmatism of just saying, "if you are an alcoholic, even if you do not drink, you cannot drive for our company." Since public risk is the factor, perhaps auto insurance companies should not insure folks who have alcohol dependence as a diagnosis... even if they have never drank and driven. Or, just to make things simpler, any individual with that diagnosis, regardless of behavior, should be prohibited from driving forever. Make sense?

As far as your pedophile example goes, it depends. What is the risk factor? The therapist would be able to determine that and act accordingly.



Absolutely and unequivocally.

Click to expand...

Well, I would argue that a school who hired someone they know to be a pedo is being extremely reckless. I think the same is true of a trucking company who hires someone to be a driver that they know to have a chemical dependency. Would you feel the same way if we were talking about a school bus driver instead of a trucker? I do have an idea for a compromise though. How about, in exchange for reinstating the person as a driver, the EEOC agrees to indemnify the trucking company if the guy causes an accident while on the job? What do you think?

riverdad said:

this position presumes so much. Jobs are usually not vacant and waiting for someone like this to fill them. This job shifting likely entails either a game of musical chairs where people get bumped out of their jobs to make room for this truck driver or it involves some form of inefficient job sharing. If the response takes the form of musical chairs, then innocent people get demoted to lower paying positions. What did they do to deserve a demotion? If the response is job sharing, then the company is being forced to pay for make-work job tasks for this driver. The only fair solution is to offer him the next job opening that becomes available and for which he is qualified. This way no employees have to bear the brunt of being displaced and the company doesn't have to create work, or shift work, for this man to do that was already being done efficiently by other employees.

Click to expand...

exactly !

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, you support the position that one can be given consequences for a behavior that they have not done?

Click to expand...

Would you hire the person who admits to pedophilic inclinations to babysit your son or daughter?

The company management has it's own interests it has to protect. If it comes down to protecting my interests versus insuring fair treatment for someone else, then I'll look after my interests first.

I won't hire the admitted pedophile who hasn't acted on his inclinations to babysit my daughters. I'd rather suffer the hit to my integrity than gamble on a very bad outcome. The expected value calculation that I make for myself is this:

-Small hit to integrity with 100% certainty - I feel for the pedophile - he did the right thing. I feel bad for punishing him for doing the right thing.
-The chance of him molesting my daughters is probably remote but the damage that would occur from that molestation would be huge. The cost of the harm would fall on innocents, not on me, though I would suffer guilt for making the decision I did and allowing the pedophile to babysit my daughters knowing full well that he had these inclinations. Keeping true to my integrity would come at too high a cost to me and others.

Yeah, it's a ****ty deal for the driver. Until the legal environment changes and companies are not held responsible for the actions of their employees and not held responsible for making the wrong decisions or being expected to have known something that they didn't know, the company is doing the right thing.

If the driver disagreed with the company's decision he could have asked for severance and found a job with another trucking company without disclosing to them that he was an alcoholic. Alternatively he could have sought treatment on his own without making disclosure to the company.

X Factor said:

Well, I would argue that a school who hired someone they know to be a pedo is being extremely reckless. I think the same is true of a trucking company who hires someone to be a driver that they know to have a chemical dependency.

Click to expand...

And I would disagree with both on principle, unless there was cause that significant risk was involved. I do not believe that someone should be punished for a behavior that they have not done unless the imminent risk of doing that behavior is clear.

Would you feel the same way if we were talking about a school bus driver instead of a trucker?

Click to expand...

Yes I would.

I do have an idea for a compromise though. How about, in exchange for reinstating the person as a driver, the EEOC agrees to indemnify the trucking company if the guy causes an accident while on the job? What do you think?

Click to expand...

No. However, I would agree that the EEOC should remove their objections if the individual refuses treatment or does not complete treatment, and should subsidize all costs for the company to do random alcohol screens.

RiverDad said:

Would you hire the person who admits to pedophilic inclinations to babysit your son or daughter?

The company management has it's own interests it has to protect. If it comes down to protecting my interests versus insuring fair treatment for someone else, then I'll look after my interests first.

I won't hire the admitted pedophile who hasn't acted on his inclinations to babysit my daughters. I'd rather suffer the hit to my integrity than gamble on a very bad outcome. The expected value calculation that I make for myself is this:

-Small hit to integrity with 100% certainty - I feel for the pedophile - he did the right thing. I feel bad for punishing him for doing the right thing.
-The chance of him molesting my daughters is probably remote but the damage that would occur from that molestation would be huge. The cost of the harm would fall on innocents, not on me, though I would suffer guilt for making the decision I did and allowing the pedophile to babysit my daughters knowing full well that he had these inclinations. Keeping true to my integrity would come at too high a cost to me and others.

Click to expand...

The pedophile argument is actually a poor one. Remember, we are talking about risk factors. The pedophile argument only works if the driver has alcohol sitting next to him. An important factor in staying in recovery is avoiding triggers. You don't put a pedophile with kids, nor do you put an alcoholic with alcohol. A pedophile can work with adults. An alcoholic can drive. Both need treatment. You take away the risk factors and you reduce the danger. These two examples are not equal at all.

Yeah, it's a ****ty deal for the driver. Until the legal environment changes and companies are not held responsible for the actions of their employees and not held responsible for making the wrong decisions or being expected to have known something that they didn't know, the company is doing the right thing.

If the driver disagreed with the company's decision he could have asked for severance and found a job with another trucking company without disclosing to them that he was an alcoholic. Alternatively he could have sought treatment on his own without making disclosure to the company.

Click to expand...

The company is firing someone for a behavior they have not done, in a position that does not put that driver in a position that is triggering. I could understand this if the driver had a DUI, or come into work drunk. Neither of those things occurred. I can even understand not allowing him to drive while he is receiving treatment, but if he completes successfully, there is no reason to prevent his return.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The pedophile argument is actually a poor one. Remember, we are talking about risk factors. The pedophile argument only works if the driver has alcohol sitting next to him. An important factor in staying in recovery is avoiding triggers. You don't put a pedophile with kids, nor do you put an alcoholic with alcohol.

Click to expand...

Who is doing the "putting?" In many cases the person doing the "putting" is the pedophile or alcoholic. In cases where there are supervisors, such as a job in a school, the pedophile can be put on as a night shift janitor. Great - no kids around, no triggers. What do you do with the truck driver, assign him a permanent babysitter who sits in the truck cab with him on all driving assignments to make sure that he doesn't a.) bring a flask with him to work, or b.) stop somewhere and pick up some booze. Truck drivers are out on their own. If they want access to a "trigger" there is no one stopping them.

This is asking the company to put their neck into a noose and trusting the driver not to kick out the chair that's under them.

I can even understand not allowing him to drive while he is receiving treatment, but if he completes successfully, there is no reason to prevent his return.

Click to expand...

I'm operating on the assumption that there is settled precedent out there in legal-land where some company has been sued for doing something just like what you suggest and if not the exact same situation then one close enough to the situation so that the precedent of "no good deed ever goes unpunished" is driven home loudly and clearly. There is a reason that the business community hates trial lawyers.



May 11, 2011




Who do you imagine has the deeper pockets here and if the plaintiff wins the case, who will foot the settlement, the drunk driver or the trucking company?

Joseph Hazelwood had a drinking problem. He went to rehab for his alcoholism. Once out of rehab his employer granted him 90 days of leave to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sometime after he returned to his job he caused an accident. There were some lawsuits. He was fined $50,000 for his part in the accident. His employer was hit with $3,500,000,000 in damages.

Exxon learned a lesson and so did every other employer.

Dion said:

Look ... while of course from what information is provided that company has a right to restrict a person if they are abusing ETOH while working.

However, the most curious aspect is that Fox News chose to say it was the Obama administration suing. That is as factual as trying to imply ... it is the speaker of the house suing this company.

Of course, Fox instead of opening a real discussion on how this ICD dx should be coded and considered for employers ... would instead present such ridiculous opening to their thinly veiled "story" on Obama!



Too freakin' funny ... ! Lets see is it Boener's fault or Obama's ... hey Fox News ... you lost credibility in your first sentence. Of course ... what is lost on the viewer is that most people would agree that this company most likely has a valid case. They present a story most could agree with the premise and yet "present it" as Obama is suing the company.

Surely FNN is not insulting the 6th grade education level they try to entice as being that stupid!

Click to expand...

Huh. Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

Earlier this year, the EEOC issued sweeping new regulations offering guidance on how to define “disability” under the law.

Click to expand...

The EEOC website identifies who the EEOC is:

www.eeoc.gov said:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a bipartisan Commission comprised of five presidentially appointed members, including the Chair, Vice Chair, and three Commissioners. The Chair is responsible for the administration and implementation of policy for and the financial management and organizational development of the Commission. The Vice Chair and the Commissioners participate equally in the development and approval of Commission policies, issue charges of discrimination where appropriate, and authorize the filing of suits. In addition to the Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program.

The Commission

Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair
Stuart J. Ishimaru, Commissioner
Constance S. Barker, Commissioner
Chai Feldblum, Commissioner
Victoria A. Lipnic, Commissioner

The General Counsel

P. David Lopez

Click to expand...

Barker left July 1, 2011. All the remaining appointees with the exception of Ishimaru are Obama appointees approved by Congress. The EEOC is part of the Office of the Inspector General, which is in turn part of the Office of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is technically part of the Obama Administration and promotes the policies of a President through those agencies. While you see it as an opportunity to criticize the article's source, you do not address the fundamental question I posed. Secondly, while it may be a biased statement to state the Obama Administration is suing the trucking company - it is in fact, a fact. Just not one you want to admit.

The changes in the definition of "disability" is what's being discussed here and those changes occurred within the last year, during the Obama administration. That's another fact. So I think it worthy to discuss those changes and the redefinition of disability as it applies to the EEOC and the ADA language in the context of this trucking company.

digsbe said:

Alcohol abuse is not a disability and should not be treated as such. A private company can do what they want.

Click to expand...

To make such a statement....as if this was a fact....
Its an opinion, Dig...
A private company can do whatever....another opinion.
We have had our fill of private companies doing as they please.
Do banks come to mind ?

RiverDad said:

Who is doing the "putting?" In many cases the person doing the "putting" is the pedophile or alcoholic. In cases where there are supervisors, such as a job in a school, the pedophile can be put on as a night shift janitor. Great - no kids around, no triggers. What do you do with the truck driver, assign him a permanent babysitter who sits in the truck cab with him on all driving assignments to make sure that he doesn't a.) bring a flask with him to work, or b.) stop somewhere and pick up some booze. Truck drivers are out on their own. If they want access to a "trigger" there is no one stopping them.
Once an alcoholic, always.
Once "anger management", the same.
Ask how I know this.
Place people where they can do the least damage.

This is asking the company to put their neck into a noose and trusting the driver not to kick out the chair that's under them.



I'm operating on the assumption that there is settled precedent out there in legal-land where some company has been sued for doing something just like what you suggest and if not the exact same situation then one close enough to the situation so that the precedent of "no good deed ever goes unpunished" is driven home loudly and clearly. There is a reason that the business community hates trial lawyers.



May 11, 2011

A Tatum resident has filed a lawsuit against a trucking company after an allegedly intoxicated truck driver collided into her parked vehicle.

Lisa Licon filed suit against Karen Tusler Anderson and Fleet Global Services Inc. on April 28 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

According to the lawsuit, Licon's disabled vehicle was parked off of the roadway on Interstate 20 near Longview on Dec. 30, 2010, when the incident occurred. Defendant Karen Anderson, who was allegedly intoxicated, failed to stay in a single lane and struck Licon's vehicle.

Defendant Anderson is accused of negligence for failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to control her speed and failing to turn or take evasive action in an effort to avoid the collision.

Anderson is also accused of negligence for driving the vehicle recklessly with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others and for operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant Fleet Global Services is accused of negligent entrustment and hiring of Anderson.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for physical pain and mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, medical expenses, lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, punitive damages, interest, court costs and attorney's fees.​

Who do you imagine has the deeper pockets here and if the plaintiff wins the case, who will foot the settlement, the drunk driver or the trucking company?

Click to expand...

Once an alcoholic, always......
The same with anger management.
Ask how I know....