You think it has not gotten crazy out there?

Citing a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles Grams by stripping him of his position and offering him a demotion even if he completed a substance abuse counseling program.

Instead, the EEOC argued, the North Carolina-based company, which has a service center in Arkansas, should have complied with the law, known as the ADA, while ensuring safety.

“The ADA mandates that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to achieve in the workplace,” said Katharine Kores, director of the EEOCs Memphis District Office, which covers Arkansas. “While the EEOC agrees that an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”

The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again.

The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy.

The company's policy bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from driving again. Reassignment to a non-driving position is contingent upon the driver enrolling in a treatment program.

Joel McCarty, general counsel to Old Dominion, wouldn’t comment on the details of the pending litigation. But he told FoxNews.com, “We intend to vigorously defend our position.”

When asked to respond to EEOC’s comments and rationale behind the lawsuit, McCarty said, “Obviously, we disagree with their position totally.”

“Our concern is safety,” he said. “And that’s why we intend to defend the policy.”

According to the EEOC’s suit, Grams, who had been with Old Dominion for five years without incident, informed the company in June 2009 that he believed he had an alcohol problem.

The company suspended him from his driving position, which paid him nearly $22 per hour, including benefits. In compliance with U.S. Transportation Department regulations, Grams met with a substance abuse professional who notified the company that Grams would participate in an outpatient treatment program and could return to work.

But Old Dominion told Grams that he wouldn’t be allowed to drive again for the company and instead offered him a part-time position as a dock worker as soon as it became available. The position paid $12 per hour without benefits, the lawsuit alleges.

Grams then decided he couldn't afford treatment because he believed he would have to pay for it upfront and be reimbursed by his insurance company only if it approved the treatment. Instead, he joined Alcoholics Anonymous. Old Dominion fired him in July for job abandonment.

The EEOC contends that the company's actions deprived Grams and other affected drivers of "equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, in violation of the ADA."

"Grams is a qualified individual with a disability under ADA ... who can perform the essential functions of a driving position," the suit says, adding that Grams and other employees wouldn't need treatment to perform non-driving duties.

The ADA, first passed by Congress in 1990 and updated in 2008, originally defined disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” Earlier this year, the EEOC issued sweeping new regulations offering guidance on how to define “disability” under the law.

When a worker meets the definition, employers must provide reasonable accommodations. For years, employers and employees have clashed over who truly qualifies for the sometimes-costly modifications to workplace duties and schedules.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/02/government-sues-trucking-company-for-taking-keys-away-from-alcoholic-driver/#ixzz1WpyDn4KC

Ugh. I'm sorry but substance abuse isn't a disability, it's an addiction. You should be able to tell your boss things like my doctor says I'm disabled because, I can no longer walk, chronic back pain prevents me from standing or sitting for long, I have disabling mental conditions, etc... But you should not be able to tell your boss, I'm disabled because I drink a six pack at lunch, or I smoke a bong before work every morning.

I'm not even saying people with addictions shouldn't be able to get help. But I see no reason employers should have to pay for it or keep that person on the payroll. It's not a disability it's bad behavior choices that the person should be responsible for.

If they're not responsible for there own bad choices, then why not turn yourself in for being a rapist, child molester, bank thief, etc and say; It's not my fault, I'm disabled by my own bad choices.

And that's not even considering the fact that addict shouldn't be driving on the roads. And that that company will get sued if that drunk idiot causes an accident. It's just ridiculous.

You know, Given this article I think that all employees should just cover their bases by telling the boss they are an alcoholic/drug addict even if they aren't. That way if they ever get fired for any reason they can just claim they were discriminated against because of their "disability".

eber322 wrote:

Ugh. I'm sorry but substance abuse isn't a disability, it's an addiction. You should be able to tell your boss things like my doctor says I'm disabled because, I can no longer walk, chronic back pain prevents me from standing or sitting for long, I have disabling mental conditions, etc... But you should be able to tell your boss, I'm disabled because I drink a six pack at lunch, or I smoke a bong before work every morning.

I'm not even saying people with addictions shouldn't be able to get help. But I see no reason employers should have to pay for it or keep that person on the payroll. It's not a disability it's bad behavior choices that the person should be responsible for.

If they're not responsible for there own bad choices, then why turn your self in for being a rapist, child molester, bank thief, etc and say; It's not my fault, I'm disabled by my own bad choices.

And that's not even considering the fact that addict shouldn't be driving on the roads. And that that company will get sued if that drunk idiot causes an accident. It's just ridiculous.

What happens if the guy drinks on the job and crashes into someone and kill them or a whole family then what will the DOJ do? If I was the company I would just take fine and still fire the guy.

Their not going to get that choice though. They are being sued and if they lose they will be forced by the court to rehire both of these alcoholics they fired and "provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits." In other words back pay AND a huge payout for violating their rights. On top of that the lawsuit is also trying to get the companies alcohol policy removed.

Actually it seems simple to me... if the company loses, just rehire the guys and let any and all addicts drive for you. Then if you ever get sued because this idiots kill somebody or cause huge amounts of damage, you simply say to the court; "We tried to get these guys off the road. The courts forced us to keep them employed and to let them drive. The court cannot now turn around and hold us responsible for the outcome of the actions the court forced on us."

eber322 wrote:

Their not going to get that choice though. They are being sued and if they lose they will be forced by the court to rehire both of these alcoholics they fired and "provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits." In other words back pay AND a huge payout for violating their rights. On top of that the lawsuit is also trying to get the companies alcohol policy removed.

Actually it seems simple to me... if the company loses, just rehire the guys and let any and all addicts drive for you. Then if you ever get sued because this idiots kill somebody or cause huge amounts of damage, you simply say to the court; "We tried to get these guys off the road. The courts forced us to keep them employed and to let them drive. The court cannot now turn around and hold us responsible for the outcome of the actions the court forced on us."

Sucks. I would rehire them then I would put breathalizers in the rigs. So they will not start or go into gear until they blow in it. That would solve a lot of problems.