Should a former porn star be fired from her teaching job. Languish decides.

[viper37]

So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.

Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?

A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.

Not a very good analogy.

depends. He could claim it's a disease (addiction) and then he could be protected against discrimination by the Charter of Rights of Liberties.  The Montreal bus driver union is defending one of its members on this ground.  he shouldn't have been fired because he was an alcoholic and it's a disease.

[Maximus]

It's a Texas school board. Why are we treating this as though reason matters?

[viper37]

It's a Texas school board. Why are we treating this as though reason matters?

because not everyone in Texas is fucked up?  We have a fine example of a normal human being here.

[The Brain]

Of course the teacher should be fired. Just as if a teacher is outed as an octoroon and can no longer be an effective teacher in that country.

[Eddie Teach]

You're an octoroon.

[grumbler]

You're an octoroon.

Get a brain, octoroon!

[dps]

Apologize for what, exactly?

Whatever it is that DGuller thought she needed to seek forgiveness for.

[crazy canuck]

See Mery's post.

Mery has magnificent ta-tas that would be at the mercy of disruptive schoolgirls.

There would be no disruptive schoolgirls in my classroom.

BRB

[grumbler]

Seedy does satire much better than you.

I was on chantix.

Well-played.

[dps]

So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.

Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?

A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.

Not a very good analogy.

depends. He could claim it's a disease (addiction) and then he could be protected against discrimination by the Charter of Rights of Liberties.  The Montreal bus driver union is defending one of its members on this ground.  he shouldn't have been fired because he was an alcoholic and it's a disease.

It's the US, not Canada, and I'm not sure that it's been thoroughly tested out in court, but as I understand it the prevail thought is that under the ADA, you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, but you can fire them for drinking on the job or being under the influence on the job.  Being an alcoholic is a disease, but being drunk at work is a behavior.

[crazy canuck]

It's the US, not Canada, and I'm not sure that it's been thoroughly tested out in court, but as I understand it the prevail thought is that under the ADA, you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, but you can fire them for drinking on the job or being under the influence on the job.  Being an alcoholic is a disease, but being drunk at work is a behavior.

So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?

Here what would occur is the person would be told that they could not work until they underwent treatment to deal with the addiction so that they could return to the job once they were medically cleared to be able to do so.  If they drink on the job after that then it is no longer a medical issue and they would be fired.

[grumbler]

So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?

I'm not sure what this means, but if you are asking whether, under US law, a person with a disease or disability is treated the same as a person without a disease or disability, the answer is no.

A person who is intoxicated on the job could almost certainly be fired (union rules or local contracts make this somewhat open), whether they are an alcoholic or not.  If they are in a position where intoxication is specifically banned by contract (airline pilots, say, or heavy equipment operators) they almost certainly would be fired, alcoholic or not, for liability reasons.

Here what would occur is the person would be told that they could not work until they underwent treatment to deal with the addiction so that they could return to the job once they were medically cleared to be able to do so.  If they drink on the job after that then it is no longer a medical issue and they would be fired.

US law does not require the employer to give multiple strikes to employees that violate their employment contracts, even if the employee is an alcoholic.  Most employers will, of course, because it is cheaper to treat and retain than it is to replace, but greeters at Wal Mart are probably gone on the first offense.

[crazy canuck]

So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?

I'm not sure what this means, but if you are asking whether, under US law, a person with a disease or disability is treated the same as a person without a disease or disability, the answer is no.

A person who is intoxicated on the job could almost certainly be fired (union rules or local contracts make this somewhat open), whether they are an alcoholic or not.  If they are in a position where intoxication is specifically banned by contract (airline pilots, say, or heavy equipment operators) they almost certainly would be fired, alcoholic or not, for liability reasons.

Ok, so the answer is yes.  US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job.    What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?

US law does not require the employer to give multiple strikes to employees that violate their employment contracts, even if the employee is an alcoholic.  Most employers will, of course, because it is cheaper to treat and retain than it is to replace, but greeters at Wal Mart are probably gone on the first offense.

It is not a matter of giving an employee "strikes".  It is not a game of baseball.  Its like saying both the rich and poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges.  Most other jurisdictions abandoned the simplistic breach of contract analysis some time ago.  Is it possible that this varies by state or is it Federal?

[grumbler]

Ok, so the answer is yes.  US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job.    What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?

Again, you have lost me.  Your questions seem aimed at providing the answer you have pre-selected, but they make no real sense.  What is "a disease" for the purposes of your question?  What is "under the influence?"  There certainly are scenarios imaginable in which an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees who are "under the influence" of some drug or treatment.

Still, you seem to know the answer to the question you are not asking, so i won't pursue this.

It is not a matter of giving an employee "strikes".  It is not a game of baseball.

  WTF does baseball have to do with this?  It seems that your hidden question is more bizarre than i had thought.

Its like saying both the rich and poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges.  Most other jurisdictions abandoned the simplistic breach of contract analysis some time ago.  Is it possible that this varies by state or is it Federal?

You've lost me, again.  What does sleeping under bridges have to do with anything, even as a Martiesque analogy? I am unaware of any jurisdiction that dismisses breach of an employment contract cases out of hand or that, for instance, requires an airline to retain a pilot found intoxicated in the cockpit.  Most US contract and employment law is state law.

I am sure that, sooner or later, you will reveal both the question and the desired answer that you are driving for here, but I'm afraid I still won't care.

[dps]

Ok, so the answer is yes.  US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job.    What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?

Well, as I said, there's not a lot of case law under ADA that I'm aware, but the rationale is that you are fired for inappropriate behavior.  In general, it's not the employer's problem to figure out why you behaved inappropriately.  It seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm more confused by rationale behind the Canadian process of having the employee receive treatment and then being able to fire them if they drink again afterwards.  You can't be cured of an addiction, so if the reasoning is that you can't be fired because of behavior that your addiction caused, why would there be any limit on the number of times you could behave inappropriately and still keep your job?