Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Cox claims discrimination? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27795
Offline
« : August 16, 2007, 08:23:46 PM »

From PFT:

THURMAN, COX PURSUE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Suspended Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman and suspended Buccaneers cornerback Torrie Cox have filed discrimination claims with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  (Geoff Hobson of Bengals.com first reported this development as to Thurman.)

The claim arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The argument is that the Bengals and the Buccaneers, at the direction of the NFL, took adverse action against Thurman and Cox, respectively, based on alcoholism, either actual or perceived.

The ADA protects employees who are disabled.  Alcoholism is a disability, regardless of whether an employee is actually an alcoholic or whether the employer perceives him to be one.  Though an actual or perceived alcoholic can be disciplined for, for example, showing up to work while intoxicated, the argument as to Thurman and Cox is that their suspensions are based on no at-work manifestation of alcoholism.

As to Thurman, it's our understanding that the NFL refused to reinstate him after a one-year suspension because he failed to attend a couple of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.  As to Cox, he tested positive for alcohol after drinking champagne at his wedding.

The focal point of the attack is the placement of certain restrictions on players in the substance-abuse program.  If a player is an actual or perceived alcoholic and if the league prohibits him from drinking alcohol at any time and if the employee tests positive for drinking alcohol on his own time, he is arguably the victim of discrimination because of his actual or perceived disability.

Thurman and Cox elected to proceed in this regard based on a recent ruling by the EEOC in a claim filed by former NBA player Roy Tarpley.  We're in the process of getting our mitts on the Tarpley decision so that we can better explain the specifics on this one.

And this could get interesting, given that the EEOC can choose to convert the claim into a broader attack against the NFL's practices in this regard, eventually asserting claims on behalf of any player who recently was suspended under similar circumstances.


Cheers

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1035
Offline
« #1 : August 16, 2007, 10:18:24 PM »

Wow. The NFL made the Bucs take action against Cox. This will get very interesting if all of the facts are made available (the seldom are). If he claims to be an alcoholic isn't it his problem if he isn't causing public or work problems?

T

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4695
Offline
« #2 : August 16, 2007, 10:32:58 PM »

Now alcoholics are being discriminated against?? Oh, the horror!!!


Cheers

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1035
Offline
« #3 : August 16, 2007, 11:54:48 PM »

Now alcoholics are being discriminated against?? Oh, the horror!!!

Isn't he referring to the point of having one drink at his wedding? No one else would have a four game suspension for the same thing.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37308
Offline
« #4 : August 17, 2007, 12:30:50 AM »

Quote
As to Cox, he tested positive for alcohol after drinking champagne at his wedding.

:o


klb55

****
Starter

Posts : 639
Offline
« #5 : August 17, 2007, 01:04:20 AM »

Some people will do anything to retain a buck.  Let me suggest that Thurman take a bat and smash Cox in the mouth.  They might be able to pawn Cox's teeth for a few bucks.  What a couple of jerkoffs.

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #6 : August 17, 2007, 09:06:27 AM »

Isn't he referring to the point of having one drink at his wedding? No one else would have a four game suspension for the same thing.

Where does it say "one" drink? The guy might have gotten smashed on champagne. In addition, that's his story, not necessarily the truth.

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #7 : August 17, 2007, 09:09:57 AM »

FYI:

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?

A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q&aeng02.htm

Cheers

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1035
Offline
« #8 : August 17, 2007, 10:59:21 AM »

DTG said:
Where does it say "one" drink? The guy might have gotten smashed on champagne. In addition, that's his story, not necessarily the truth.


Your right it does not say one drink. My point is that he was not a danger to society per say (dui, bar brawl etc.) lol.  Being his wedding I am more understanding.

mjs020294

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2245
Offline
« #9 : August 17, 2007, 11:06:55 AM »

The Buccs need to cut Cox, he creates far too much news drama.


rowdie

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4885
Offline
« #10 : August 17, 2007, 11:56:47 AM »

FYI:

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?

A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q&aeng02.htm


You have got to be eff'n kidding me! 

So the guy I fired 'cause he couldn't make work often, showed up to work drunk, and actually drank while at work could probaby sue me successfully under the ADA but it protects drunks?  This is the same ADA that takes all kinds of parking spaces for pefectly able bodied individuals? 

Basically, if I choose to become a low life waste of a human drunk farqwad Not only am I protect by the government in so far as my employment but I'd alway qualify for one of those parking passes?  Awesome!

Where's the Tequila?!



DYK, we have a college football forum... http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #11 : August 17, 2007, 01:38:54 PM »

Alcoholism is a disability? 

I was planning on quitting, but now I'll just drink more, and get on SSDI!!


doobiedoright

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3223
Offline
« #12 : August 17, 2007, 01:50:31 PM »

I'm on SSd and trust me you dont want to be!
Wish I was healthy si I could go back to earning my comfortable living,
$780 dosent even come close to paying the bills.Specialy when I made more than that a week!
Becareful what you wish for!


rowdie

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4885
Offline
« #13 : August 17, 2007, 02:24:13 PM »

I'm on SSd and trust me you dont want to be!
Wish I was healthy si I could go back to earning my comfortable living,
$780 dosent even come close to paying the bills.Specialy when I made more than that a week!
Becareful what you wish for!

I do if I can have a fake disability like Alcoholic.

DYK, we have a college football forum... http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #14 : August 17, 2007, 02:29:24 PM »

I'm on SSd and trust me you dont want to be!
Wish I was healthy si I could go back to earning my comfortable living,
$780 dosent even come close to paying the bills.Specialy when I made more than that a week!
Becareful what you wish for!

I do if I can have a fake disability like Alcoholic.

Just get four alcoholics to move into a place together and share the bills.
  Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Cox claims discrimination? « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools