EEOC demands that company let alcoholic driver drive their trucks

The federal "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" has a history of making crazy rulings and then suing businesses into the poorhouse. Since they have essentially unlimited resources, it's hard for a company to beat them even when they're clearly being arbitrary, capricious and stupid.

Combine that attitude with the draconian powers of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" and you've got the bureaucratic equivalent of the perfect storm.

Their latest is suing a trucking company that pulled one of its drivers off the road after he admitted to having an "alcohol problem."

The company has a long-established policy to do that, apparently believing that the risk to both the public and the company of an alcohol-related crash are too great. It didn't fire the driver, but gave him a non-driving job--one that paid less. The former driver refused to show up for the non-driving job and was fired.

The EEOC says alcoholism is a "recognized disability" under the ADA. And according to that law--which has morphed from good intentions into a legal monster--it's illegal to "discriminate" against anyone with a disability.

So now the EEOC is demanding that the company re-hire a man with self-admitted "alcohol problems" as a driver of big rigs. Oh, and give him back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits.

I understand that the ADA was passed with the intention to do good, but it's hard to see how forcing companies to let alcohol-plagued drivers continue to drive is a good policy.

Except that it continues to provide a good living for thousands of government employees filing crazy lawsuits.