- Messages
- 79,278
- Reaction score
- 45,630
POSTED 8:14 p.m. EDT, August 16, 2007
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.
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.
