How Supreme Court nominee could change workplace safety
July 21, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Alcohol/drugs, disabilities and safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Transportation safety
PDF While a judge on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with two fellow judges who ruled an employer could set safety standards higher than what the government required.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had sued J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., claiming that the rights of applicants for over-the-road (OTR) truck driving jobs had been violated.
Hunt chose not to hire OTR applicants taking certain prescription medications with side effects that could impair driving.
The trucking company argued that the large vehicle size and the extreme driving conditions faced by its OTR drivers warranted extra safety precautions.
Hunt cited Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations that allow an operator to require and enforce “more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation and employee safety and health.”
The two-judge majority on the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the EEOC, saying the applicants lost their jobs because of the medications they took, not because of any real or perceived disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
To find that the applicants were regarded as disabled, the EEOC had to show that Hunt perceived the rejected applicants as limited from a class or a broad range of jobs.
The two-judge majority found that OTR driving didn’t qualify as a class or broad range of jobs.
But Judge Sotomayor found that the EEOC has shown Hunt believed the rejected applicants were unfit to drive any truck — which qualified as a broad range of jobs.
Had one of the other two judges agreed with her position, Hunt would have been found in violation of the ADA.
If that were the case, Hunt would not have been allowed to set higher safety standards for its OTR drivers than required by the DOT.
The majority ruling in the Hunt case and Sotomayor’s dissent are online here.
What do you think about this case and Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: EEOC v. J.B. Hunt, prescription medication and driving, Sonia Sotomayor
Loading ...
June 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I believe this was decided correctly. The company didn’t violate the ADA because these driversn are not legally disabled. ADA disabilities are substantial limitations on major life activities, such as breathing, walking, talking and hearing. The inability to do do one particular job dosn’t substantialy limit a major life activity.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
This is not and ADA dicrimination case, but a matter of saftey. As and employer it is my job to worry about the saftey of my employee’s and if need be the saftey of the community if the job interacts with the community. I agree with the Hunt Company and would not have let the driver out on the road. The liablily of both the community and the employee would be to great and if they had let the driver out on the road and something had happened think of the consequences the company would be facing knowing that they let someone drive under those conditions. This judge is not only rediculouse, but do you think she would have taken responsibility if something happened and someone was killed? Governement is there to put in place a policy to protect, my question to her would be who was she protecting? Certainly not the community and certainly not the employee.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Justice is supposed to be blind and not subject to “empathy” - Hunt was clearly in their rights to do this.
That is simply common sense. The ethnicity and sex of a Supreme Court Justice is not to be a factor in determining “fact”. Introducing this factor will forever fundamentally change our rule of law government for the worse.
Hunt should also not be obligated to hire a MultiMillion Dollar Accident Waiting to Happen…..what next - narcoleptics?
This kinder/gentler stuff is nonsense and is more than a slippery slope. I suppose someone will now somehow argue it is the “Latina” in her that allowed for this earth moving opinion. Not supportable.
We are a nation of laws and this nominee is attempting to sidestep that using her so called “special struggle” as a new measure…this is pure folly. I don’t want a surgeon who “struggled” through med school to operate on me for the same reason…… Pure nonsense.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I believe you have missed the point. The issue is did HUnt discriminate based on disability, not if they can set safety standards that are higher that the ones set by DOT. Sotomajor appears to see that Hunt said drivingt ANY truck was a risk. It seems that this article is anti-ADA in tone.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
If anyone would like to start calling other people here “racist” - because we don’t like her decision making process - you can just stop that now because that won’t wash either.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
How about this - it was a bad decision on her part. This is a safety matter. Simple.
If she is going to interject her special “wisdom” based on her life history - whatever that might be - then we should rethink her position as a Supreme Court Justice.
She herself opened the door on several occasions publicly to her being so “special” ….so now we have to ask why so? Explain. This is no “slip of the tongue” or “I mispoke” gaff either.
We need brain on this panel, not a heart.
Somehow all of a sudden her being a Democrat has made her particular latin roots more suitable than other Hispanic Court nominees? Why is that?
June 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I agree with Jen. Employers are supposed to be proactive in making sure their drivers are able to drive safely while on the road. If a driver is even slightly impaired by the medications he/she is taking, the company faces a strong liability exposure should that driver have an accident. Even though DOT may say the driver is OK, we know that government standards may lag several years behind the real world.
The OSHA General Duty clause requires employers to provide a safe place to work. If the employer allows the employee to use medications that impair his/her ability to drive safely, is not the employer violating the General Duty clause?
The purpose of setting safety standards higher than the federal standards is to discriminate lawfully against those drivers whose use of medications (not whatever disability may be perceived) makes them more likely to have an accident.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
This is insane. Yet another reason why Sotomayor should NOT be confirmed.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
My understanding is that Hunt is an over the road trucker only firm and does not do local delivery so “any” driving might apply in this case? That would make sense…versus say a UPS driver that might do interstate and intrastate and local driving and have other opportunities. Hope that clarifies.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I agree with the majority opinion. In my position as a safety professional, I train employees and Supervisors of the importance of notifying their supervisors of any prescription drug use and how it may affect their ability to operate any equipment. In our manufacturing environment, medications could have a severe safety impact when operating equipment in cutting, shaving or material handling. The employer has an ethical responsibility to have more stringent safety rules when dealing with medications.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Any clear thinking fair minded rational judge without an agenda would rule in favor of JB Hunt. The essential job function for driving long and short haul vehicles includes the ability to control the vehicle consistently in a safe manner. Driving ANY vehicle while impaired by prescription medications is a complete disregard for the life and safety of self and others. Thank God Sonia did not prevail in this case… she made a poor decision here!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Doug - great point there “without an agenda”. Her agenda now is to interject “empathy” into a system that relies solely on fact….thus subverting its’ purpose.
The President “says” we are a nation of laws but then his deeds show us he does not respect the constitution and how it rightfully restricts government intervention into our lives.
This appointee is going to help change that using “empathy”. Wrong.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Does anyone know the specifics of the case? I wonder where Hunt got the info to make the decision to eliminate peole taking the specific drugs? WAs it a medical opinion, did they read the stuf that is in magazine ads for drugs? The decision would need to have been made with a medical professional, not laymen. Obviously narcoleptics cannot drive-they can’t even get a standard licence, but what about diabetics? Should they not drive? The info given is very limited as to what the case was about and, if someone is taking the medication, they ‘are regarded as having’ the disability related to it, thus the ADA link.
Not saying what they did was right or wrong, or that her or other other judges opinions were right or wrong-but if they elminated someone taking an aspirin a day from their ranks- that goes too far.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Editor’s note: To answer Marie’s question, a partial explanation of how the prescription drug list was developed by Hunt is in the judges’ opinions. You can read it by clicking the link at the end of the story.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Providing a safe workplace is not only good business sense it is also common sense. It is not hard to see why our president nominated her. He lacks both business as well as common sense. I of course agree with the majority ruling.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Good grief! This is simple common sense. Her point of view is harmful to everyone. She made that decision based not on common sense but on a misguided sense of social justice. We can’t afford a supreme court justice that is not able to see obvious results of their decisions.
Somebody please do a close review of her other decisions and see if this pattern is repeated.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I do not believe there is a current or past justice on the court with whom I agree in all cases. Setting aside the technical issues at play here, which are a bit more complicated than some of the knee-jerk reactions suggest (although I, too, agree with the majority in this case), I cannot imagine judging a potential nominee based on one decision, unless that decision were truly and completely beyond the pale of a reasonable argument.
Do I want judges to make decisions based on the facts and the law of the case? Absolutely (and there are some very clear examples of Judge Sotomayor doing exactly that — she has repeatedly distinguished between the role of the lawmakers and the role of the judge). But do I want a judge with no empathy? Heaven forbid. Some of the most significant and lasting decisions required empathy. One could suggest, for example, that the big difference between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education was that in the latter case, the court genuinely understood how the legally plausible doctrine of “separate but equal” could not reach that result in real people’s lives. That understanding strikes me as empathy.
By the way, I too am a safety professional (CSP) and a long time student of constitutional law (though not an attorney).
June 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I agree with Sonia Sotomayor. The ADA must allow reasonable and customary accomodations, and the Company must prove medically that it was a safety to them and others to not allow them to drive.
They must prove “with medically testomony”, which the Company negleced to do. The EEOC was correct and would not have brought the case to court.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Our wonderful legal system that has been completely obliterated by lawyers and greed. On one side, you have an applicant rejected because they are taking a prescription drug that lists impairment as a side effect on its label (HELLO!!! if the drug admits its a side effect….DUH!). But on the other hand, the applicant is hired by some other company that “ignores” this issue, and the applicant falls asleep at the wheel because of it, killing a school bus load of kids going on a field trip.
EITHER WAY THE COMPANY GETS SUED AND WASTES MONEY ON LAWYERS TO DEFEND AGAINST SUCH ITIOTIC NONSENSE!!!!!
Only in America!!
June 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
And we wonder why insurance is so expensive!?!?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Wow, just what should be done. I don’t want a driver taking pain meds or muscle relaxers driving a truck on the same road I drive.
We do try to monitor our employees when ill and on meds. This is just smart safety managment.
Death or dismemberment is much worse than this.
Wake up USA!
June 8th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I agree with Jen 100%. I think there has been/is an agenda with this judge.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
So who’s right? The biased judge or the former Red Lobster cashier now making decisions on which medications are banned with no formal medical training?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I agree with Marie. Over 800 medications were on Hunt’s list that knocked a person out of their job pool. Maybe common sense was used here, maybe not. I, for one, never assume common sense is a governing factor (unfortunately). But, having read the manufacturer’s inserts for the simplest of medications myself, I know that manufacturers list ANY side effect ever experienced, no matter how unlikely (to cover their butts, of course) - so, I know I’ve taken common medication that said not to operate heavy equipment, even though it completely did not impair my ability to drive my car - nor did my doctor caution me about the safety or dangers of driving while on the medication. In fact, most medications seem to list among possible side effects the very symptom that you’re taking the medication for in the first place (i.e. taking medication X for headaches can cause a headache!). So - without ALL the details and knowing what was on the list of 800+ medications, I think it’s difficult for any of us to make a fully informed decision of how this case was ruled on, based on an article that seems to sway the reader to one point of view.
I, for one, will not try to say who was right or wrong without knowing ALL the facts. Just my two cents.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Going to have to agree with previous commenters. I’m sure HUNT has the facts about the drugs they are concerned about. If this makes the person disabled then they need to get disablity. The roads are dangerous enough, would you want your kids to be traveling next to an 18-wheeler where there is possiblity for the driver to fall asleep? NO. I’m real worried about this administration. Please everyone not fall for all the presses yippy skippy coverage. Pay close attention to what is going on.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
This is only one case. I’m sure all judges have made bad calls in their judgments and rulings several times during their careers.
I think they need to come up with more then just one case to establish a pattern for bad call rulings.
Judging her based on just this case is just dumb. It’s reaching for straws just to discredit her.
Even though a ruling that is decided by several judges by vote is split, all judges involved write up the reasoning for their decision on the ruling for public review. We should see more of these writings and on what the case was about to see of she is inclined to be not sensible.
I’m not saying I support her. What I am saying is we need more information to base an opinion of her and many people are basing their opinions on her being a woman and Hispanic and then pulling up one court case by a Republican dominated web site.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I think that people are misunderstanding the decision - essentially all Sotomayor said was that the judge had erred in ruling that a summery judgement should be made in favor of Hunt. She felt that the EEOC had made a case worth listening to that Hunt was violating the ADA in the way that they were handling those they felt should not be driving the trucks based on the medications that they took. She did not rule that Hunt could or could not set it rules etc. though she felt that the evidence was not that strong that Hunt was doing the job properly - she just said that the summary judgement should have been set aside and the case actually heard in court.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’m beginning to wonder if I should be reading the opinions listed here as I originally thought, enlightenment, or for entertainment. After reading the ruling, (while not a prerequisite for an opinion I do believe it helps in making a reasonably intelligent one),
I discovered there were several reasons for the dissenting vote in this case, two of which were.
1. The dissenting judge felt that Hunt rejected applicants as “ineligible for a broad class of jobs ie. Driving trucks, (quite a few of the comments from Hunt’s interviewers support this), rather than as the majority judges, for a specific position ie. a long haul trucker. This would quite probably be an EEOC violation.
2. Part of this seems to be based upon Hunts application process. There seems to be some evidence, (not enough in my opinion), that rejection was based on a list of drugs rather than a list of diseases these drugs are used to treat, (Big Difference).
I am neither pro nor con when it comes to Judge Sotomayor. In everything I’ve read on her decisions I’ve come to the conclusion that she, unlike many, can read, consider, and come to a reasonably intelligent opinion that I may or may not agree with. Just like every other Supreme Court Justice since I was able to read and assimilate information.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Fred Hosier has certainly written a provocative ‘editorial’ in which he uses Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion not only to state his take on the case, but also his apparently pre-formed opinion of Sotomayor. He does this by putting a workplace/public safety spin on a disability discrimination case - because that is what this case is about. The Court of Appeals opined that Hunt did not reject (job) applicants because they were “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission failed to provide enough evidence to prove that Hunt discriminated. This case was about whether the formulae JB Hunt used to accept or reject job applicants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by weeding out folks who take certain prescription drugs that exceeded the number listed by the DOT. I would have a really hard time with ANY Judge who decided a disability descrimination case based on the OSHAct or general duty clause. How would you like it if the Judge deciding your workplace fatality case based the decision on whether the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Mr. Hosier’s saving grace is that he has provided a copy of the decision for all to read-preferably BEFORE spewing out uninformed and inflammatory rhetoric - and asked the readership for their take on the decision. Thank you. Mr. Hosier anticipates (and rightly so) the decision from the case to be used as precedent for future cases challenging an employer’s right to raise the bar for its own company safety standards - but this case could not be decided with that in mind. But, hey, did you catch that? JB Hunt is one of those safety professional’s dream companies - one that wants to exceed the minimum standards under DOT, OSHA et.al.! I wonder what Hunt is doing to make the DRIVING WORK itself safer? Anyway, I digress…Let’s compare apples to apples, please.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ok this judge ruled on a CT Fire Department Promotion Civil Service case against a qualified applicant who went to great strides to get promoted and pass the test (much like her maybe?) but because he was “white” the case was rejected.
Empathy or Agenda?
June 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
V Joslin - JB Hunt’s application process would have violated the applicants rights if it had considered the diseases the drugs treated instead of the effects the drugs had on potential drivers.
JB Hunt considered the “Essential Job Function” which requires an ability to control a vehicle (any vehicle) consistently in a safe manner. The drugs on JB Hunts list could cause varied levels of impairment among individuals depending on the dosage, health of the individual, amount of sleep, nutrition, etc.
I commend JB Hunt for doing diligence in protecting their employees and the public.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I have to agree with Sotomayor on this one.
Hunt claims to be acting in good conscious and with regard to the safety of their employees, customers, and society as a whole. And that may be, however;
This goes to the reason someone is taking a drug, which must be considered before the taking of the drug itself. The reason is that if a worker is given medication it very well may put him in what the ADA defines as the protected class thus firing or making a decision on the employee’s employment becomes illegal. So for example, let’s say the worker was prescribed a “downer” by his doctor for a healing limb, or healing muscle, or as part of a therapy schedule. It is incumbent upon the company to ask for and oblige a worker the way ADA instructs and defines “an accommodation” to be. Simply firing (or not hiring) on the information of the meds being taken is illegal in my mind as well.
If a company sets higher standers it must do so in a matter that it doesn’t violate another law. I understand trying to be more stringent than the legal minimums and that may be commendable, but in this case their stricter rules applied to their states DOT laws but I find them to be illegal under the ADA. A decision is valid in one sense (DOT Regulations) but illegal in another (ADA Legislation).
Just my 2 cents.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Passion (Empathy) without reason leads to chaos; reason without passion (empathy) is cold and lacks humanity.
We are all entitled to our opinions. Without reading the case arguments, the only thing we have is our conjecture and opinions, and you know what they say about those…
June 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Marie: Are you familiar with the FMCSA Act regarding drivers being medically unqualified and/or disqualified from obtaining a CDL and driving commercial vehicles? Someone who is narcoleptic is medically unqualified to obtain a CDL. Diabetics who can potentially go into a diabetic coma are medically disqualified from obtaining a CDL and driving these trucks.
When a company makes an across the board requirement for all applicants to qualify for, and it passes the “reasonable man” criteria, then I don’t see how they are being discriminatory.
I know I could not take Benedryl and qualify as a driver, so I don’t see how Hunt is being unreasonable. They are setting high standards to qualify as a Hunt driver, and this is one of the reasons they are known for having such great drivers. That should count for something.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
When we anoint someone into a position of that much power, a lot of common sense is needed about the social justice system.
Let us keep this simple. A company tries to hire the “best” for the job and then the company is put though court and Sotomayor wishes for more. How can a business make money with this kind of over-head over one decision? People like her are helping companies fail; her point of view is harmful to everyone.
I lived and worked in a communist country for 8 years and know we need to value the system we have here in America, treat it like gold and protect it from those who wish to destroy it.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Just curious…why did the rejected applicants sue? Is Hunt’s driving positions that sought after? It’s a sad day when an employer cannot err on the safe side to protect the community.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Everyone has missed the point. The DOT has a list of prescribed medications that if being taken would disqualify a driver when he/she took their intial physical exam. The list is pretty broad and covers most drugs with side affects that would impair driving large commercial vehicles. Hunt did not indicate that the drug was on that list. If Hunt felt that the drug had side affecdt, then they should have submitted it to the DOT for an opinion.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am
If the precautions on the pill bottle read; “Do not operate machinery”, the employer should agree with that medical decision. Really, it’s a no-brainer.
Hunt, like all companies, is a business with liabilities. Every business must protect it’s liabilities in order to be profitable.
By placing higher safety standards than Fed Regs mandate, they chose to protect their liabilities in order that they may continue to do business.
With businesses protecting theier liabilities, there would be no jobs, no economy, and you my friend, would be on the street.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The issue is can taking medication make you disabled thus violating the ADA laws.
Where does the extent of disability end and safety begin. This determination by Sotomeyor just expands the scope of ADA entitlements to include someone who takes Advil for a headach.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
There’s no argument that a company has the right to have applicants meet more stringent safety requirements. But the company must do so in a manner that complies with the ADA. Sotomayor was writing her opinion on whether Hunt’s selection process for hiring operators was violating the rules under the ADA. This is not the same as saying an employer cannot have higher safety requirements. I believe she acted in line with the role of any judge ruling on this case-to determine whether the employer acted within the strict guidelines of the law. It’s not the judges’ role to change or amend the ADA - that’s our legislators jobs as our representatives.
I don’t believe JB Hunt really intended to discriminate, but it may have (unintentionally) when it expanded on the DOT drug list to include over 500+ Rx drugs which relied on the judgement of unqualified staff to compile this broad Rx list - instead of credentialled health professionals qualified for this task.
As for the applicants’ disability, correct me if I am wrong: I believe the judges stated that a person under medication is not considered “disabled” as long as that drug controlled the disabling symptoms.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I’m no lawyer, or by any means an “expert”, but I’m just trying to understand a few things here. What, under ADA, (if ADA was being used to determine the employment of these applicants) would “make” JB Hunt have to hire these applicants if found to be disabled. Unfortunately, the case notes from this do not list the drugs, nor the supposed disabilities suffered, that you can say that they would even have the ability to operate this machinery. It doesn’t say for certain that these applicants had every other qualification needed to fill these positions (although I guess it could definitely be inferred that they do, thus the lawsuit). I know ADA is tricky in hiring (I’m too used to dealing with the accessibility issues in construction), and I’m not very familiar with those regulations, thus the questions.
Of course, this has no bearing on my opinion of today’s companies being caught in a never ending catch-22 of being sued for not hiring, or being sued for hiring, and then something happens. Today’s society of sue-happy people is getting WAY out of hand, and I’m surprised any company actually makes money while trying to cover their collect butts.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Oh, give me a break. This judge wants to run every company likes she thinks it should be run. If this applicant had operated a truck and killed a family, while under the effects of a drug that could alter his mind or body, this judge would have been the first one to cry foul. She would have ripped this company for hiring someone that should have been known to be a risk. There really is no way to win with these activist judges because they get to second guess. They play the armchair quarterback and therefore, get everything right and everything wrong. We live in the world of hard decisions and must make choices that we LIVE with every day. Judge Sotomayer can always say she did not mean her decision/s to cause this or that. She just wants to be fair. Meaning you and I are incapable of being fair. Is their no end to worthless, cruel and disgusting business people? And who do we thank for all these fair, wise and “more experienced” judges than you or I?
June 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Barry - Amen brother…..
Remember the golden rule of liberal activists…..”even when we are wrong we are right”
June 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Sotomayor is a judge. Anyone who has spent any time in court or with lawyers knows that judges do not rule on “common sense” or what is “right”. They rule on the minutia of the law. The way the article described her decision (truck drivers constitute a “class”) means her decision was based on the law and not on warm-and-fuzzy feelings. The other judges also seemed to be correct since they were leaning on their reading of other passages, i.e. pill-taking is not a disability. Neither one of the decisions was based on safety.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
RP,
For the most part you are correct and this isn’t directed at Judge Sotomayor but there are judges out there that make rulings according to their own agendas rather then according to the little details of the law.
That is why we have an appellate court system.
Keep in mind that an Appellate Court Judge is an appointed position and not an elected position like your lower courts.
That means she must have been doing something right through her performance to get that appointment. Unlike the elected judges that have to campaign for your votes. Your District Supreme Court Judges are elected.
I know first hand of a female judge that would request extended sentences for people that committed crimes involving firearms because she was an extreme anti gun activist.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
It is ironic that a company trying to elevate the safety level is being viewed as possibly wrong rather than looking out for the safety of their employees and the other drivers on the road. If that same company had allowed the drivers taking a medication that impaired their driving/reaction time and they caused an accident there would be a huge outcry against them. The intensity of the accusations agains them would be equal to the seriousness of the injury caused or the resulting death of someone. You can bet that they would be sued and asked why they allowed this employee to drive while taking this medication, then they would be defending themselves for adhering to the safety levels set by the government. It seems like it’s one of those situations that no matter what they did they would be “wrong” in someone’s eyes.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I rarely direct comments to specific bloggers, but Mark and Barry you are definitely birds of a feather. You both have one thing in common with the three judges - none of you have based your opinions about this case on safety. But, at least the judges focused on the ADA laws. You two, on the other hand, have made it abundantly clear through your inflammatory comments that you base your opinions about Sotomayor on personal bias (or believe everything you hear from talk radio “news” and Rush fans.) If Senator McConnell has said it will take months for the members of the judiciary committe to scrutinize the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cases Sotomayor has ruled on, I don’t suppose you might want to bone up on a few of these cases before foaming at the mouth?
June 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Practice what you preach ANQ…..but then why would you do that since you obviously know so much more than anyone else here - and have just said so. Thank you for exposing yourself as yet another ASSuming liberal “know it all” .
You must be another well trained Saul Alinsky convert. Too bad, I don’t listen to Rush nor do I need to understand the consequences of what is taking place. So go attack someone else…..
June 11th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Kelly Kline,
JB Hunt has shown due diligence in observing and enforcing safety within their company. They have a good safety incentive program and they take safety seriously enough to go the extra mile.
They’ve done enough to ensure their covered in the event of any law suit. Not even OSHA can touch them on this one because OSHA has been over ruled by a higher court in this regard.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Would all of you please keep your comments polite on this forum? Most of us get this at our work email address, and using profanity masked as part of another word still sets off bells and whistles with our IT department.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Oh, cut the crap, Mark. We are all entitled to our opinions, and this is an opportunity amongst professional for open dialogue to share those opinions and gain a different perspective about the issue in question. What I am simply asking is that you share the facts about Sotomayor’s record that have led you to your beliefs, as those facts may enlighten us all and perhaps lead us to the same conclusion. You do yourself an injustice when you rely on labels, bullying and namecalling.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Right, but it seems only your elitist opinions count…..I get it. So get off your own high horse.
This is poised as a political debate just as much as one about safety. There wouldn’t be so much commentary and the host knows it which is why they interject politics into the mix on most of these topics.
It is inescapable anyways as most thinking people can see. Ok, so Stomayers decision about the CT Firefighters is a slap in the face of anyone who “struggled” to meet the requirements of the job requirements for civil service - Joe Biden was out this week trying to sell Sotomayer as someone “having their back” (his words) which she doesn’t - and shouldn’t have anyone’s back.
So, she is being offered as a savior for “certain groups” of people and not a preserver of the constitution which is the job at hand.
Obama disdains the constitution and makes no bones about how it constrains (his) the ability of government to do things - and rightly so. We don’t need more government - the Europeans are now telling us it didn’t work for them - take a look at England PM…..spend, spend, spend…..and now collapse.
Now you can go ahead and feel free to diss me for expressing that opinion ANQ. You can disguise your dislike for the opinion anyway you like since you do not appear to proactice what you want everyone else to do. Get over your self righteousness ……
June 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Editor’s note: Let’s get back on track with the Comments on this story. They should address workplace safety. Thank you.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
I feel whenever we can make the work place a safer place we should take every opportunity to do so. I’m also very aware of ADA rules and regulations, as I have a handicapped Son. But there is somthing about this case that makes me wonder about the true motives behind Hunt’s actions, somthing just doesn’t ring true in my mind, I just can’t put my finger on it.
Thanks for allowing me to comment, everyone have a safe day!
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Having been a long haul driver for many years, I agree with the opinion of the judges and disagree with Ms. Sotomayor. It is incumbent on the employer to engage only highly qualified drivers, including the consideration of any medications that may impair their ability to safety operate an OTR truck as a matter of public safety. Unlike many worksites, these drivers highly interact with the public with lethel (and depending on the cargo perhaps explosive) amounts of weight and speed. It is not, in my opinion, a matter of whether J. B. Hunt is violating the ADA. It is a matter of Hunt doing what they can to not only protect their own interests, but the interests of the public. Ms. Sotomayor’s wisdom was not evident in this case.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
As a wife of an OTR truck driver, what a devestation to me to have to see my husband suffer in a jail cell because it was ok for him to take a drug that has side effects (reactions differ per person) that could impair his ability to respond to various situations over the road. Not only for him to suffer in jail but for my daughter who would have to live with the fact her daddy won’t be coming home (providing he survives). She is already dealing with special needs (and is protected by ADA herself) and misses daddy week to week, lets add insult to injury. Thanks to JB Hunt families are protected wether the driver or us civilians on the road by their policy. As a safety co-ordinater we need to look not just the employee but the lawsuit of knowing it could have been prevented by taking extra caution. Yes this may limit jobs for some, but at least they have their life and so do I and my family.