“The Spokane City Council voted [unanimously Feb. 27] against a settlement in which a Spokane police officer fired in 2009 after a DUI and hit and run, would have been rehired and received $275,000. … Councilmember Mike Fagan said during the City Council meeting, ‘I not only say no, but I say hell no.'” [KREM] Attorney Bob Dunn, representing former officer Brad Thoma, said “his client was fired after the city refused to accommodate Thoma following a doctor’s diagnosis of alcoholism. ‘Disability law clearly identifies that alcoholism is just that a disability. Washington follows the ADA.’ The case started in 2009 when Thoma hit another vehicle while driving drunk then fled the scene.” Dunn said he would file a $4 million suit on behalf of Thoma. [same]
9 Comments
Too many behavioral patterns are becoming diseases.
So we are stuck with alcoholism as a ‘disease’ in the medical model of things. He cannot control his drinking. But where does it state that he has drivaholism? Driving with the impairment is a volitional choice; a poor one, but a choice freely made nevertheless. And it does not reflect well on the qualifications of an individual who want public license to choose when to use deadly force.
IANAL, but doesn’t the ADA only require reasonable accomodation? I can think of nothing reasonable which would allow a person so alcoholic as to be prone to drunk driving to continue driving and carrying a firearm as a profession.
Stick him in a desk job with no police-car privileges and no weapon, sure, I could accept that. I tend to think the most reasonable accomodation for most of these addictions is time off to go through rehab, but
What’s reasonable? There are several dictionary definitions, but the one people use when they say things like “Why can’t you be reasonable?” is “What I want.” What this guy wants is $275,000 and his job back. Why can’t they be reasonable?
Bob
Attorney Bob Dunn, representing former officer Brad Thoma, said “his client was fired after the city refused to accommodate Thoma following a doctor’s diagnosis of alcoholism.
They refused to provide him with free beer. 🙂
I am really trying to understand this.
Cop goes out, drives while drunk, hits something, and leaves the scene of the accident. He doesn’t get prosecuted (most likely because he is a cop) but he loses his job. Yet because of the DUI and leaving the scene, he can’t work as a cop anymore because it would be foreseeable that as a drunk, he would run over someone leaving the city on the hook for that lawsuit.
In 2011, the law changes, allowing him to get his job back, and so he sues for $275,000 in back pay?
For one year of lost work?
I am with the Councilman…. not only “no,” “hell no.”
@gitarcarver: I could see letting him recover, but only if the civil suit by the family of the person he hit recovers $375,000 from him. The payment would remove him from the ‘judgment proof’ category.
Would BevMo coupons be acceptable as compensation?
Another exhibit in the increasingly compelling case to reform all disability laws……………
During the time that the ADA was being considered and debated, there were anarhco-free enterprise-individualists, comme moi, who prognosticated that public sector employees would not be bashful about asking for more via the legislation.