PFT: Odell Thurman and Torrie Cox pursue discrimination claims against the NFL

[playmakers]

These two are morons. Even if they win the first case this will be in court for so long their playing careers will be over. Not only this, do they have the money for lawyers? Bad decison. Sit out like a man and get better.

Couldnt the NFL say something on the lines of they dont want those arrests to tarinsh the leagues image; therefore, since techincally being a football player you're employed by the NFL and they can hire and fire people at will, couldnt they say they would just fire them from the job[league?]

I know nothing about lawyers etc. If Im way off base I apologize.

 

[03EBZ06]

However, I think the NFL not reinstataing someone because he had a drink at his wedding is just plain stupid.

You do know that Torrie Cox is a repeat offender, right?

Cox has been charged twice for suspicion of driving under the influence (December 2004 and September 2005) and reckless driving (September 2005).

 

[Go Big D!]

Just what an alcoholic needs a crutch to lean on. NFL requires that they attend AA meeting this is too help the player not to punish him and in the case of Thurman the NFL refused to reinstate him after a one-year suspension because he failed to attend a couple of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Sorry as far as I'm concerned people need to start taking some responsibilty for their own action

Exactly. I know in the military they have treatment programs but if you are not willing to go or you keep drinking they can and will eventually kick you out. My barracks roommate had to undergo mandatory treatment for alcoholism or else the Marine Corps was going to give her the boot.

Same should be applied to Thurman. If you don't follow through with the treatment...it's on you.

 

[sacase]

Exactly. I know in the military they have treatment programs but if you are not willing to go or you keep drinking they can and will eventually kick you out. My barracks roommate had to undergo mandatory treatment for alcoholism or else the Marine Corps was going to give her the boot.

Same should be applied to Thurman. If you don't follow through with the treatment...it's on you.

Actually you can go to the program. Complete it and start back drinking again. I had a soldier do this 3 times. lol

 

[Go Big D!]

Actually you can go to the program. Complete it and start back drinking again. I had a soldier do this 3 times. lol

Well, maybe the Marine Corps has different standards than the Army or maybe it's the fact that the guy actually finished his treatment or simply that it may have changed since this happened to this chickie. Regardless of the fact, the instance you cited is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Exactly. I know in the military they have treatment programs but if you are not willing to go or you keep drinking they can and will eventually kick you out. My barracks roommate had to undergo mandatory treatment for alcoholism or else the Marine Corps was going to give her the boot.

Same should be applied to Thurman. If you don't follow through with the treatment...it's on you.

A guy in my platoon was a month away from transferring to the states when our platoon leader and sgt had enough and got him kicked out.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

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.​

Oshiffer, ol' buddy, buddy. You cant aresshht me. I have dishability called alcoholishm, ok? You go cash some real criminalsh.

 

[burmafrd]

Dumb and dumber.

 

[lane]

"I'm a thug, I should be allowed to do whatever I want and get away with it, and I deserve special treatment"



David

 

[Sarge]

:doh: :doh: :doh:

 

[JackMagist]

So they are right that it is covered in the ADA but they have at least two hurdles to get over IMO.

First they have to prove they are alcoholics.

Secondly they have to prove that their alcoholic status does not adversely affect job performance AND CONDUCT.

It would seem that that last part is what may get them because they are going against the conduct that is covered in their contract with the NFL.

They don't have to prove that they are alcoholics...they only have to demonstrate that the NFL acted against them based on a perception that they are alcoholics. It's the whole "actual or perceived" loophole that is going to get them past this one. And since the NFL was requiring them to attend AA meetings it is pretty much self evident that they were perceived to be alcoholics.

As for the conduct part; I'm a little unclear on this one since they did not elaborate in the FAQ. However, it is my understanding that they can only discipline an employee for conduct At Work. The NFL would have to prove that these players conducted themselves in an adverse manner due to their alcoholism (actual or perceived) At Work.

The alcoholic lawyers who wrote these regulations and the alcoholic politicians who approved them really knew what they were doing

 

[VACowboy]

I'm not an expert on alchoholism or the specifics of the individual cases involved, but as a quadriplegic, I'm appalled that these athletes are using the ADA as a loophole to get around difficulties brought on by their own thuggish behavior.

 

[texasclaw]

It's too bad that alcoholism has to be thought of as a disease OR a disability.

It's an addiction, brought upon by choices made by an individual. Nobody is born with a beer bottle in thier hand.

I think pretty much everybody has an alcoholic in thier family and knows how pathetic and conniving they can be. This stuff about it being a disability opens up a huge can of worms.

Are we gonna be giving out handicapped parking spaces to these losers now?

I have to disagree with you when you say people make a choice to become addicted to alcohol (or anthing else for that matter). Some people are born with genes that predispose them to alcohol addiction and their environment does the rest. They are as helpless to not drink as you or I are to not breath.

TexasClaw
On The Border Of Texas

 

[Tractor1]

It's too bad that alcoholism has to be thought of as a disease OR a disability.

It's an addiction, brought upon by choices made by an individual.

Truer words haven't been spoken. No special allowances or considerations should be afforded.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Truer words haven't been spoken. No special allowances or considerations should be afforded.

The sad thing about this is that Thurman and Cox will have their suspensions lifted based SOLELY that their actions were off-the-field.

I always said that Goodell's crusade to clean up his league will blow up in his face and now it's going to.

He's handing out suspensions for what they did in the off-season. A place of employment cannot fire a person for what they do on their day off. In their case, a whole part of the year off. They CAN fire them if they drink on the job or come to a team function drunk. Which they did not do.

Had it been in during training camp... well... that'd be different.

 

[dbair1967]

The sad thing about this is that Thurman and Cox will have their suspensions lifted based SOLELY that their actions were off-the-field.

I always said that Goodell's crusade to clean up his league will blow up in his face and now it's going to.

He's handing out suspensions for what they did in the off-season. A place of employment cannot fire a person for what they do on their day off. In their case, a whole part of the year off. They CAN fire them if they drink on the job or come to a team function drunk. Which they did not do.

Had it been in during training camp... well... that'd be different.

sorry but this is just wrong dude

they have a contract for the yr/s, not just for football season (Aug-Dec)...they are obligated to obide by the NFL and their team rules year round

David

 

[jackrussell]

The sad thing about this is that Thurman and Cox will have their suspensions lifted based SOLELY that their actions were off-the-field.

I always said that Goodell's crusade to clean up his league will blow up in his face and now it's going to.

He's handing out suspensions for what they did in the off-season. A place of employment cannot fire a person for what they do on their day off. In their case, a whole part of the year off. They CAN fire them if they drink on the job or come to a team function drunk. Which they did not do.

Had it been in during training camp... well... that'd be different.

Could not be further from the truth.

 

[BrassCowboy]

It's too bad that alcoholism has to be thought of as a disease OR a disability.

It's an addiction, brought upon by choices made by an individual. Nobody is born with a beer bottle in thier hand.

I think pretty much everybody has an alcoholic in thier family and knows how pathetic and conniving they can be. This stuff about it being a disability opens up a huge can of worms.

Are we gonna be giving out handicapped parking spaces to these losers now?

 

[BrassCowboy]

I have to disagree with you when you say people make a choice to become addicted to alcohol (or anthing else for that matter). Some people are born with genes that predispose them to alcohol addiction and their environment does the rest. They are as helpless to not drink as you or I are to not breath.

TexasClaw
On The Border Of Texas

What is an addiction other than simply a predisposition to something based on a difference in their genes, right?

what?? that has to be the biggest copout I have ever seen...

How about coffee? There are people who drink several cups a day, is that genes too? How about cigarettes? Someone better let those tobacco companies know they are off the hook because it is not their fault, it is in the smoker's genes....

I could go on, but I have to go pick up my disability check. Damn them McDonalds, their evil.