Two NFL Players Claim Alcoholism Discrimination
Two NFL players, who have been suspended by the league for repeated violations of its substance abuse policy, have filed lawsuits claiming that because the NFL has viewed them as alcoholics, the league cannot punish them for being alcoholics under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In separate actions, Odell Thurman (pictured), middle linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals, and Torrie Cox, cornerback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, are seeking to get their current suspensions lifted.
Both lawsuits point to one successfully filed in the NBA by Roy Tarpley, formerly of the Dallas Mavericks. In that case, the EEOC ruled the NBA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not reinstating Tarpley after he passed drug tests for four straight years.
Alcoholism a Disability?
Thurman was a starter for the Bengals as a rookie in 2005, but was suspended for the entire 2006 season after skipping a drug test and later being arrested for drunken driving. Last month, Commissioner Roger Goodell denied his application for reinstatement, although Thurman has passed all of his drug tests, according to the lawsuit.
Cox was suspended last month for the first four games of this season.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against workers with disabilities. In their lawsuits, both players claim that alcoholism is a disability.
What do you think? Should the ADA include substance abuse? Click on the "Comments" link below and let us know your opinion.
Source: ESPN. Bengals' Thurman, Bucs' Cox file discrimination claims against NFL. August 2007. Photo: NFL
Comments
First, I think you need to do a better job at editing. It is not good to have a mis-spelled word in the title of your story. Second, complaints are filed with the EEOC. Lawsuits are filed in court.
Third, I’m tired of people claiming their destructive behavior is due to a disability. I don’t believe substance abuse is a disability. Even if it is, you can still be fired for it, depending on the circumstances.
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.
While a sober alcoholic cannot be discriminated against without repercussions. The alcoholic should be agreeable to proving his sobriety on request
Alcoholism is a disease, but IS treatable, and full recovery is possible. The players are being dicciplined for behavior, not the disease.
Someone with an addiction disability goes to treatment and proves their stability afterward. Roy Tarpley, their apparant role model, tested clean for 4 years. If that is the criteria for professional sports, Thurman and Cox have a long way to go.
Alcohol abuse and dependence are definitely mental disorders. But like physical disorders, they do not always lead to disablility. Disability is most likely if the disorder is left untreated. But when treatment has been successful, there usually is no long term disability. Paradoxically, though, if a sober alcoholic is discriminated against based on what he or she did when the disorder was active, then the argument can be made that there is a lingering handicap that would trigger A.D.A. protection. The handicap here is the unelightened attitude of the public which does not recognize this biopsychosocial problem as a true mental disorder that requires treatment and with treatment can experience recovery that allows the afflicted person to resume their full role in society as a citizen and as a worker.
As a professional in the substance abuse field it is important to understand that alcoholism is a disease and not a disability. People live successfully with all kinds of diseases. It is an individual’s choice as to how they deal with that disease. If someone chooses to drink and drive it is not the disease that caused that behavior. Those players should absolutely be held responsible for their actions and not hide behind the ADA.
Ken, as a professional in this field I am shocked to hear your final assessment here. Is DUI a symptom on alcoholism? I’m sure all your books will say it is. So, that being said, should a DUI or even multiple DUIs be held against an alcoholic who has recovered? I am a alcoholic who has not drank in a long time, but the DUIs i incurred during that period will be on my record forever thanks to the freedom of information act. Despite overcoming something MUCH harder then the average person will ever have to face, I am still discriminated against by employers many years later. I don’t think anyone is hiding behind the ADA, that is double-speak. If the ADA recognizes it as a disease, and DUI is a symptom of that disease, then RECOVERED people should not be discriminated against by definition of the ADA.
Ken
If alcholism is a disease and not a disability as you say, then why are people with this ‘disease’ protected under the ADA (Americans DISABILITY Act) Clearly someone has defined this as a disability. The reason I ask is that I have an employee who is about to make a play for long term disability. I agree with you that its not a disability but the ADA has included it.
This is a sensitive topic for me. Obviously, Ken is a ‘professional’ (i.e. book educated) in this field and never an alcoholic. Saying that an alcoholic has a “choice” as to how they deal with their disease is questionable depending on which floor of the elevator the alcoholic is on. Although, now sober for a little over 3 years, at the end of my drinking, I can honestly say I had no choice and I drank to die (AT THAT POINT – I would definitely call that a disability). Unless anyone has been in an alcoholic’s shoes so to speak, you truely have no idea the turmoil an alcoholic lives through with their addiction. They are not ‘choosing’ to continue the hell they’re living in, they have “no choice”. I DO NOT believe; however, that an alcoholic or a “heavy drinker” who just parties a lot and chooses to drink and drive should not have any consequences due to their actions. In addition, an employer, family member, friend or anyone else for that matter should NOT have to tolerate an alcoholic or should an alcoholic employee be eligible for a “long term” disability. An employer should be obligated to warn the employee that they recognize the problem and give the employee the chance to resolve it (possibly with a short-term disability leave/rehab) and not necessarily paid leave. If the employee does not work towards “getting well”, then the employer should be able to discharge the employee without legal recourse. Each case should be evaluated individually — is someone truly disabled alcoholic and willing to seek help or are they just reckless partier and hiding behind ADA.
And P.S., Ralph, you’ll never recover, you’ll just stay sober.