NOT THE SHARPEST KNIVES IN THE DRAWER: DOT, EEOC Have Competing Agendas To Deal With Alcoholic Truck Drivers
When one of its truck drivers reported that he had an alcohol abuse problem, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. suspended him – as required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations – and referred him to a substance abuse counseling program. The driver was also told that even after successfully completing the program, he could no longer drive the company’s trucks – and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act because alcoholism is classified as a disability, Heritage Foundation blog The Foundry reports:
“The ADA mandates that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to achieve in the workplace. Old Dominion’s policy and practice of never returning an employee who self-reports an alcohol problem to a driving position violates that law,” said Katharine Kores, director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, whose jurisdiction includes 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.”
If the EEOC prevails, of course, it will mean that Old Dominion will still be liable both for any damage to life or property that results from a potential relapse by one of its recovering drivers – which in turn increases the risks involved in investment in the company – and for the cost of trying to ensure that such damage never occurs. All of these new burdens will raise Old Dominion’s cost of doing business, and hence the cost of everything they transport. And all of this can’t possibly ensure that a recovering driver does not relapse without the company’s knowledge. …
EEOC’s case might not be a slam dunk. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader notes, a federal appellate court ruled in 1995 that employers can fire someone for problems caused by an ADA-qualified disability if that disability “poses a significant risk [to others] that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.”
Comments