Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Kali said:

I am not sure but I do know that a lot of whinos draw a check every month due to their drinking. It pisses me off as they wanna give sober people with real medical issues a hard time but giving these folks a check? I don't like it as the only thing wrong with them is their desire to drink plus a lot of times they do work under the table via construction work. There is a place in my town to where all the wineos wait each morning to be picked up to go to work under the table and these places pick them up in trucks to do side jobs and labor and pay them at the end of the day. Also they drink from sunrise to sunset. Cannot be safe but guess it does not matter as it is cheap labor. They mainly show up when there disability checks have been ran through on drinking and a lot of them also smoke of the crack.

It is not that I do not feel for them as alcoholism is a disease. But it is one that can be helped if you are willing to get treatment and it is a somewhat self inflicted disease (even though there is proof that it is gentic too or can be). What bugs me is so many folks that need disabilty through no fault of their own but are denied yet here are these folks drinking themselves to death get these checks.

Click to expand...

You're plying to the notion of the incapable, drooling, sniveling street bum drunk - a lot of alcoholics aren't like that. :shrug: Those are the ones we see because they're so bluntly obvious in everyone's face about it.

Aunt Spiker said:

You're plying to the notion of the incapable, drooling, sniveling street bum drunk - a lot of alcoholics aren't like that. :shrug: Those are the ones we see because they're so bluntly obvious in everyone's face about it.

Click to expand...

Oh I am well aware that a lot of alcoholics are not like that. My Dad is a prime example of alcoholics that are not like that and has been sober for many a years. He almost lost jobs over his drinking and was forced in rehab various times. It was not til he got a wake up call (that is too personal to go into) that he got his ass in check and understood that if he did not save himself that he was gonna lose any and everything he loved. I know all about addiction so do not think I am clueless.

Kali said:

Oh I am well aware that a lot of alcoholics are not like that. My Dad is a prime example of alcoholics that are not like that and has been sober for many a years. He almost lost jobs over his drinking and was forced in rehab various times. It was not til he got a wake up call (that is too personal to go into) that he got his ass in check and understood that if he did not save himself that he was gonna lose any and everything he loved. I know all about addiction so do not think I am clueless.

Click to expand...

Well I know you know more about it - your post only addressed one very stereotypical drunk concept of an individual. . .seemed out of place.

RiverDad said:

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.

Click to expand...

An exception does not define a rule.

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.

Click to expand...

And if that driver behaves in any way that indicates he is deviating, he needs to receive consequences. I also indicated that the government should subsidize the random testing. But the company should not be punitive for a behavior that has not occurred, in a situation that is not part of the trigger.

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.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

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.

Click to expand...

I have no idea whether there is precedence or not. Some regulation in this area is important, but not OVER regulation.

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...

[/quote]

I guess we will have to wait and see what the outcome is. From what I see, the company has no negligence, but there may be information we are currently unaware of.

Ockham said:

So can homosexuality... doesn't mean we should do it though.

Click to expand...

Ummm... that is untrue.

RiverDad said:

One of the problems that arises from the law requiring a job reassignment is that jobs are usually not vacant and waiting for someone like this to fill them.

Many of the bleeding hearts here feel bad for the driver because he is being punished for his disability. Who here weeps for the warehouse worker for is bumped from his $40,000 per year job to the next lowest job which involves truck detailing and pays $30,000 per year? What has this person done to deserve a demotion? Can he go to the EEOC and demand that they fight to bring him justice?

Click to expand...

This is ANOTHER example of you using an inaccurate situational comparison. These two situations are not similar at all.

CaptainCourtesy said:

An exception does not define a rule.

Click to expand...

You're thinking in terms which are too black and white here. You're putting the alcoholic's welfare, and your sense of justice, above the risk that the company faces and if a bad event occurs because of this driver and his history, then all of the people in the company will suffer.

Dying on the hill of principle doesn't make sense to me.

What do you tell the company if a bad event should occur? They had the option to foreclose on this risk but people like you held their feet to the fire. What words or deeds of comfort do you offer them?

You say that Hazelwood is the exception, I say that he represents a class of employees who employers hired and entrusted with responsibility and who failed to execute their jobs responsibly and thus their employers were held to account. There are, and have been, a number of civil actions against companies which are based on the claim that employers didn't exercise good judgment in hiring the people they hired. Hazelwood is not sitting alone regarding this issue.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This is ANOTHER example of you using an inaccurate situational comparison. These two situations are not similar at all.

Click to expand...

WHY are they not similar?

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, CC, why wouldn't you support that? It's the EEOC that wants to force the company, not only to rehire the guy, but hire him as a driver. If the EEOC is so confident that the guy won't screw up and kill someone, let them bear the risk. In either case, I do think someone would have a good claim against the EEOC if this guy is reinstated and ended up hurting someone (presuming the EEOC doesn't have immunity, which it may well have).

RiverDad said:

You're thinking in terms which are too black and white here.

Click to expand...

Not at all. YOU are the one doing that.

You're putting the alcoholic's welfare, and your sense of justice, above the risk that the company faces and if a bad event occurs because of this driver and his history, then all of the people in the company will suffer.

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of your black/white thinking. You are assuming that with an alcoholic, a "bad" event will occur. My position is that the company needs to do, within reason, what it can to prevent a "bad" event from occurring, but handing out consequences for something that not only has not happened yet, but has not given any indication that it would happen (no DUI's on the driver's record, no reports of him driving drunk or working drunk), is not appropriate.

Dying on the hill of principle doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

There are levels to this. It is not black/white.

What do you tell the company if a bad event should occur? They had the option to foreclose on this risk but people like you held their feet to the fire. What words or deeds of comfort do you offer them?

Click to expand...

"Crap happens."

It is not possible to foretell every possibility. The driver indicated that he was an alcoholic. He should be told that he either receives treatment or is fired. He should be told that he must demonstrate proof that he completed treatment successfully or he is fired. He must adhere to all random checks or is fired; if he fails a random check, he is fired. With these kinds of policies in place, the company protects itself from liability.

You say that Hazelwood is the exception, I say that he represents a class of employees who employers hired and entrusted with responsibility and who failed to execute their jobs responsibly and thus their employers were held to account. There are, and have been, a number of civil actions against companies which are based on the claim that employers didn't exercise good judgment in hiring the people they hired. Hazelwood is not sitting alone regarding this issue.

Click to expand...

He is an exception in the context of what we are discussing.

RiverDad said:

WHY are they not similar?

Click to expand...

Your second scenario has nothing to do with a disability. It, therefore, has zero to do with what we are discussing.

X Factor said:

I'm curious, CC, why wouldn't you support that? It's the EEOC that wants to force the company, not only to rehire the guy, but hire him as a driver. If the EEOC is so confident that the guy won't screw up and kill someone, let them bear the risk. In either case, I do think someone would have a good claim against the EEOC if this guy is reinstated and ended up hurting someone (presuming the EEOC doesn't have immunity, which it may well have).

Click to expand...

For the same reason I would not support the company being liable for something bad happening as long as the company took reasonable precautions.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Not at all. YOU are the one doing that.

Click to expand...

Dude, you're so far into the Land of Principle that you can't see the borders. I've gone through examples which weigh the two sides of the issue and come down on one side and given reasons for it. That's nuanced thinking. You're just sticking to your guns on a matter of principle without acknowledging the risks that face the company.

You are assuming that with an alcoholic, a "bad" event will occur.

Click to expand...

No, it's an acknowledgement of the very real world phenomenon of relapse and the probabilities associated with relapse. It's an acknowledgment that if something bad happens that their decision to put him back on the road will be second guessed by a judge/jury who is very sympathetic to the victims of the accident he caused.

My position is that the company needs to do, within reason, what it can to prevent a "bad" event from occurring, but handing out consequences for something that not only has not happened yet, but has not given any indication that it would happen (no DUI's on the driver's record, no reports of him driving drunk or working drunk), is not appropriate.

Click to expand...

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the sound of it falling, does that mean that the tree did not fall? There certainly exist responsible drinkers who manage to keep their drinking activities off the job and then there are those who can't. We don't know which type he was and the fact that he wasn't caught doesn't tell us anything. What we do know is that he is an admitted alcoholic, one who needs treatment, which implies some degree of severity and lack of will power.

There are levels to this. It is not black/white.

Click to expand...

You just need a helping hand here. You can't see how black and white your thinking is.

It is not possible to foretell every possibility. The driver indicated that he was an alcoholic. He should be told that he either receives treatment or is fired. He should be told that he must demonstrate proof that he completed treatment successfully or he is fired. He must adhere to all random checks or is fired; if he fails a random check, he is fired. With these kinds of policies in place, the company protects itself from liability.

Click to expand...

Prove the bolded and I'll concede the point, otherwise your argument is no more than wishful thinking being used to justify a rigid philosophical position not moderated by real world factors.

Of secondary note, who will be paying for all of the random checks and tests and employee time needed to monitor this driver? The driver?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Your second scenario has nothing to do with a disability. It, therefore, has zero to do with what we are discussing.

Click to expand...

That is no consolation to the displaced worker. Your argument rests on an arbitrary metric - job protection due to disability is to be protected, job protection not characterized by disability is not protected. This amounts to no more than an argument that "the law is always right" and if the law ever changes then your position is automatically invalidated. That's not a valid form of argument. If you claim that my comparison is invalid, then make a solid case for it. I recognize that the scenario is difficult for you to address and that's why you're gaming your response so as to dismiss it as being out of bounds.

Why does the alcoholic driver deserve a job more than the warehouse worker he may displace?

RiverDad said:

Dude, you're so far into the Land of Principle that you can't see the borders. I've gone through examples which weigh the two sides of the issue and come down on one side and given reasons for it. That's nuanced thinking. You're just sticking to your guns on a matter of principle without acknowledging the risks that face the company.

Click to expand...

Your examples are inconsistent with the scenario mentioned. I have pointed this out, consistently You are so stuck on your position that you cannot see that.

Also, I have acknowledged the risks facing the company and indicated ways to mitigate those risks. You are looking at this in only an either/or situation.

No, it's an acknowledgement of the very real world phenomenon of relapse and the probabilities associated with relapse. It's an acknowledgment that if something bad happens that their decision to put him back on the road will be second guessed by a judge/jury who is very sympathetic to the victims of the accident he caused.

Click to expand...

All possibilities not probabilities.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the sound of it falling, does that mean that the tree did not fall? There certainly exist responsible drinkers who manage to keep their drinking activities off the job and then there are those who can't. We don't know which type he was and the fact that he wasn't caught doesn't tell us anything. What we do know is that he is an admitted alcoholic, one who needs treatment, which implies some degree of severity and lack of will power.

Click to expand...

And your option is to protect the company and say screw the worker, assuming that as an alcoholic, he WILL mess up. My options are balanced so the company gets some protection, as does the worker.

You just need a helping hand here. You can't see how black and white your thinking is.

Click to expand...

As I have pointed out. My thinking is balanced and notes shades of gray. Yours is not and does not.

Prove the bolded and I'll concede the point, otherwise your argument is no more than wishful thinking being used to justify a rigid philosophical position not moderated by real world factors.

Click to expand...

Again, there is no black/white... as much as you wish there was. The position here that is rigid, is yours, not mine. You have thrown plenty of red herrings here, trying to prove your position, but cannot. By following what I have suggested, the company does plenty to protect itself from liability. Is it a guarantee? We know that there are only two guarantees in life.

Of secondary note, who will be paying for all of the random checks and tests and employee time needed to monitor this driver? The driver?

Click to expand...

I already stated that the EEOC should do that.

RiverDad said:

That is no consolation to the displaced worker. Your argument rests on an arbitrary metric - job protection due to disability is to be protected, job protection not characterized by disability is not protected. This amounts to no more than an argument that "the law is always right" and if the law ever changes then your position is automatically invalidated. That's not a valid form of argument. If you claim that my comparison is invalid, then make a solid case for it. I recognize that the scenario is difficult for you to address and that's why you're gaming your response so as to dismiss it as being out of bounds.

Why does the alcoholic driver deserve a job more than the warehouse worker he may displace?

Click to expand...

You can throw out all the red herrings you want. The basis for this discussion is that a worker is being demoted on the basis of a disability. Your scenario does not match that, so it is irrelevant to the discussion. I will not entertain you changing the goalposts.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And your option is to protect the company and say screw the worker, assuming that as an alcoholic, he WILL mess up. My options are balanced so the company gets some protection, as does the worker.

Click to expand...

I'm not assuming that the worker will screw up. I'm saying that now that a risk factor has been identified we can assign some values to it and we can also assign some values to a variety of future outcomes, and one such outcome is a serious accident on the road, where the company exposes itself to greater liability with this employee than they would face from an employee who didn't enter rehab for alcoholism. You can't just erase knowledge that drops into your lap and which is useful.

As I have pointed out. My thinking is balanced and notes shades of gray. Yours is not and does not.

Click to expand...

Willful blindness and delusion are so funny to read.

The position here that is rigid, is yours, not mine. You have thrown plenty of red herrings here, trying to prove your position, but cannot. By following what I have suggested, the company does plenty to protect itself from liability. Is it a guarantee? We know that there are only two guarantees in life.

Click to expand...

Speaking of red herrings, your continued clinging to your unreasonable, and thus far unproven, assertion that these actions protect the company from liability is a classic example of a red herring being deployed in an argument. You've assumed that your position is true, you've provided no evidence in support of your position that these actions indemnify the company, you've dismissed examples which I've provided which invalidate your fantasy, and your tunnel vision can't see the folly of the hole that you're digging.

I'll reiterate my point - you provide proof that your scheme indemnifies the company from liability and I'll concede this point to you. That's fair. Your entire argument rests on this point, so provide evidence for it that has more substance than being mere wishful thinking.

I already stated that the EEOC should do that.

Click to expand...

OK, but we're not talking about some ideal world that you're creating where all laws and regulations must conform to your wish so that your principals can be upheld. We're talking about the real world. Will the EEOC actually pay for the staff time and the tests necessary to insure this alcoholic remains on the straight and narrow? I've never heard of anything like this before. So again, if the EEOC doesn't pay for the staff time and the cost of the tests, should that be born by the driver or the company and why?

RiverDad said:

I'm not assuming that the worker will screw up. I'm saying that now that a risk factor has been identified we can assign some values to it and we can also assign some values to a variety of future outcomes, and one such outcome is a serious accident on the road, where the company exposes itself to greater liability with this employee than they would face from an employee who didn't enter rehab for alcoholism. You can't just erase knowledge that drops into your lap and which is useful.

Click to expand...

And I am not erasing knowledge. I am assigning responsibility for the worker and responsibility for the company, minimizing potential damage, and, at the same time, not punishing for things that have not occurred. There are certainly a variety of outcomes that are possible.

Willful blindness and delusion are so funny to read.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking that as I've been reading your posts in this thread.

Speaking of red herrings, your continued clinging to your unreasonable, and thus far unproven, assertion that these actions protect the company from liability is a classic example of a red herring being deployed in an argument. You've assumed that your position is true, you've provided no evidence in support of your position that these actions indemnify the company, you've dismissed examples which I've provided which invalidate your fantasy, and your tunnel vision can't see the folly of the hole that you're digging.

Click to expand...

Your examples are all exceptions or non-comparable situations. You have the tendency to do this or to change the goalposts in debate. I will not play that game and will dismiss any argument that does not fall inside the scope of what we are discussing. I know you don't like that. Too bad.

Also, you cherry-picked my comments that you quoted... quite the dishonest debate tactic. I have suggested that following through with what I have stated will do plenty to protect the company from liability. I have also stated that it is not a guarantee, but of course there are no guarantees.

I'll reiterate my point - you provide proof that your scheme indemnifies the company from liability and I'll concede this point to you. That's fair. Your entire argument rests on this point, so provide evidence for it that has more substance than being mere wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

No, my entire argument does NOT rest on this point. I have been clear that it will do plenty to protect the company from liability. I clearly stated that it was no guarantee. You REALLY need to stop the black/white thinking. Absolutism is easy to refute, as I have done.

Now, YOUR entire position is based on giving consequences to someone who has not violated any rules, yet. You identify as a libertarian. Tell us all how that fits in the libertarian credo.

OK, but we're not talking about some ideal world that you're creating where all laws and regulations must conform to your wish so that your principals can be upheld. We're talking about the real world. Will the EEOC actually pay for the staff time and the tests necessary to insure this alcoholic remains on the straight and narrow? I've never heard of anything like this before. So again, if the EEOC doesn't pay for the staff time and the cost of the tests, should that be born by the driver or the company and why?

Click to expand...

Again, you are changing the goalposts. X Factor asked me if the EEOC should absolve the company from liability. I said no and offered this as an alternate solution. We ARE talking about we believe should occur. You have your opinion. I have mine.

X Factor said:

I'm curious, CC, why wouldn't you support that? It's the EEOC that wants to force the company, not only to rehire the guy, but hire him as a driver. If the EEOC is so confident that the guy won't screw up and kill someone, let them bear the risk. In either case, I do think someone would have a good claim against the EEOC if this guy is reinstated and ended up hurting someone (presuming the EEOC doesn't have immunity, which it may well have).

Click to expand...

The man has a disability as defined by the ADA. The company broke the law by demoting him, not because of his actions, but because of his disability. He didn't do anything wrong, in fact he is effectively being punished for doing the right thing. Way to encourage openness! The simplest way to restore his losses is to reinstate him to the position he held before their illegal act.
The company might then negotiate with him to find an accommodation acceptable to all, such as redeployment at the same rate of pay to a different role, with the man's agreement.

CaptainCourtesy said:

For the same reason I would not support the company being liable for something bad happening as long as the company took reasonable precautions.

Click to expand...

But nobody is going to ask you and they are going to be held liable. Many of us noted that it would be slightly different at least if there was a way to remove this liability but there isn't.

So your arguement boils down to one where you would not hold them liable but that's a fantasy position. We can't expect companies to operate under fantasy scenario's.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You can throw out all the red herrings you want. The basis for this discussion is that a worker is being demoted on the basis of a disability. Your scenario does not match that, so it is irrelevant to the discussion. I will not entertain you changing the goalposts.

Click to expand...

What has been presented are not factual (as far as we know) to the situation but they are logical as to what will happen somewhere.

Driver pays $60,000 a year. It's the best job in the business. The company offers him another job in the warehouse but it pays $45,000. What are we supposed to do? Force the company pay him $60,000 for the warehouse job?

Manc Skipper said:

The man has a disability as defined by the ADA. The company broke the law by demoting him, not because of his actions, but because of his disability. He didn't do anything wrong, in fact he is effectively being punished for doing the right thing. Way to encourage openness! The simplest way to restore his losses is to reinstate him to the position he held before their illegal act.
The company might then negotiate with him to find an accommodation acceptable to all, such as redeployment at the same rate of pay to a different role, with the man's agreement.

Click to expand...

And we wonder why so many jobs flee to other places.

We wonder why disabled Americans need a law to force employers to treat them fairly.

Manc Skipper said:

We wonder why disabled Americans need a law to force employers to treat them fairly.

Click to expand...

I should let it go but let's break your arguement down. The guy is making $60,000 as a driver. He's offered continued employement but the only other jobs are warehouse jobs that pay $45,000. Your solution is that they should be forced to give him the warehouse job but still pay him the $60,000.

That is a recipe for failure. On top of that, if it was a union shop, the employer would likely not be able to do this based upon their contract.