Government Sues Trucking Company For Taking Driver’s Keys Away After Admitting He Was Battling Alcohol Abuse


Our government (Obama’s appointees under his Department of Labor) is suing a trucking company for taking a driver’s keys away after he admitted he was battling alcohol abuse.

The government wants the driver REINSTATED and the company’s policy changed.

There is a serious liability concern for the trucking company if they did not take his keys away and having the government sue them for doing so brings up some questions, like, is this tyranny?

Will the government protect a worker’s alleged “rights” no matter the cost to everyone else and even if another government agency (DOT) sends a different message? Or does the government want the company to pay the driver even if the driver is not and cannot do the job? Sounds tyrannical to me.

The driver is not the point here. The tyranny is. The trucking company’s actions are reported to have been in conformity with the company’s policy.

Imagine if an accident results because of his drinking problem while the company knew about the problem? Will the government be there to take full responsibility since it’s their mandate? I won’t hold my breath. There is a very high relapse rate among alcoholics and I cannot imagine any trucking company wanting such a risky situation. Click here for facts about relapse rates.

The government states that the company did not comply with the Americans for Disabilities Act because alcoholism is a disability. Why alcoholism is a disability is another question I have, but that is for another article.

In 2008, the accommodations a company must make for someone with a disability were greatly expanded. The cost to companies, the liability issues, and the often extreme accommodations are at times harmful to businesses. Is there a limit to what companies will be made to do by the government? It seems not.

The laws from one government agency send one message like the following from the DOT and then we have the EEOC sending a different message, which makes it difficult for a company to function. No matter what they do, some law will corner them. In this particular driver’s case, I don’t know if DOT governs, but it’s not about this driver as I said.

The Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier Advisory states under 391.41(b)(13) A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism.

The term “current clinical diagnosis” is specifically designed to encompass a current alcoholic illness or those instances where the individual’s physical condition has not fully stabilized, regardless of the time element. If an individual shows signs of having an alcohol-use problem, he or she should be referred to a specialist. After counseling and/or treatment, he or she may be considered for certification.

Instead of this going through the union or a civil suit, it appears that the government wants the case so they can micromanage the trucking company and mandate their policy. The government has their hands in everything.

This lawsuit is not a great use of taxpayer dollars.

From Fox News:  …The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles G— 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…