Comments on: EEOC: drinking history no reason to withhold heavy trucking jobs

By: September 9 roundup

September 9 roundup — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:32:42 +0000

[…] Stories you read here first: wider coverage for EEOC suit against trucking company for not letting alcoholic drive [Fox, earlier] […]

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:41:57 +0000

Alcoholics can reform and contribute to society. If someone has gotten their life back together and overcome that awful adversity, it is awful to discriminate against them.

Let’s say your neighbor is in a nasty divorce with an awful woman. You know she is awful. She accuses him of abusing their children.

You figures the charges are garbage. They probably are. But do you let the guy alone with your children. Of course you don’t. It is unfair to him. But who cares? Keeping your kids safe comes first.

Same holds true here, I think. Sure, it is unfortunate to discriminate. These guys are driving unbelievably lethal weapons. It is just not work the risk.

Where does all of the “greater good justifies discrimination against alcoholics” stop? I don’t know. But, for me anyway, it rolls on through requiring a company to force them to hire them in spite of their risk profiles.

By: D

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:24:45 +0000

John D.G.,
You can’t randomly test him more frequently. A random test must be truly random.

By: Yeah

Yeah — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:25:32 +0000

To Mike,

are you seriously comparing DUI and raping a kid? That analogy does not hold. Not at all.

By: Theatre of the Absurd | The Laconic Law Blog

Theatre of the Absurd | The Laconic Law Blog — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:25:02 +0000

[…] to Walter Olson at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/hows-our-ada-compliance-dial-1-800-hire-sots/ and Overlawyered for the story. This entry was posted in ADA. Bookmark the permalink. ← EEOC Verdicts […]

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 03:30:00 +0000

Duck,

And I can’t think of a better way to protect a company from liability then benching an person with a substance problem from driving 45 tons down the road at 60 miles per hour.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:56:33 +0000

I can’t think of a better way to discourage self-reporting than to automatically and permanently ban anyone who self-reports from driving.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:46:05 +0000

To John David,
I may know a convicted rapist who is available to babysit your daughter. If he rapes your daughter even one time, you fire him, “for cause, either way, no problem”.

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:08:01 +0000

Having been a truck driver, I see no problem here. Existing FMCSA regulations require all drivers to be subject to random testing for both alcohol and drugs. So just test this guy more often than the average. If he keeps testing clean, then he deserves the extra chance, and if he doesn’t — in fact, if he blows as much as .001 at any firm I’ve so much as applied to drive for — then he gets fired again, for cause. Either way, no problem.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:14:07 +0000

Mannie:
I think you read a different article. The one I cited included:

“There were five people in the other vehicle, police said. One person suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the arm and hand, and two others were hurt in the attack.

*** [and]

Police recovered five shell casings that matched Furr’s weapon.”

Quite a trip from multiple counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, to he was off duty, so there’s nothing to see here, just move along. And, I’m sure glad that post-Heller, DC acted to ensure that civilians don’t have realistic access to firearms. Otherwise, it could get dangerous on those streets.