SunDiety getting it right here. Two things:
1) The article makes zero mention of the AMA or the EEOC evaluating the risk potential of having an alcoholic trucker. NONE. They simply say "it's a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease." Can you not see the ridiculous precedent being set here? What if a bus driver has a stroke and becomes blind? Blindness is a disease. Can't fire him, right?
2) In this case, the people responsible for evaluating the risk potential are the people responsible for assuming the risk. Notice that the EEOC is not offering to guarantee this employee will not cause an accident and assume any and all financial responsibilities if he does. Nope, the company is on their own for that. So IF this guy gets drunk on the job, crashes his truck, and kills a family, the trucking company will be sued. The plaintiff will be able to EASILY prove that the trucking company KNEW this man was a drunk and kept him around anyway. They'll probably win a settlement in the millions. Who has to pay the settlement? Not the AMA! Not the EEOC! The trucking company! Who suffers the negative public relations hit? Is the local community going to blame the EEOC or the employer for the accident? Gee, I wonder...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg