What consequence would fellow officers administer to this?

[Stendec]

Drinking and taking prescribed medication aren't comparable - one is a voluntary, elective activity while the other is a medical necessity. And did it actually cause impairment that you can document? The way you described it, he came to you and requested to be relieved because he felt a potential impairment coming on. If you didn't recognize any impairment before then, he either wasn't impaired, wasn't impaired to the point of noticeability, or you lacked the ability to spot it. And presumably, if he is terminated because he takes a prescription medication that could cause impairment, you set a precedent in which anyone who takes a prescription medication that could cause impairment should be involuntarily terminated, whether they actually experience impairment or not. If they do not take their medication for fear of being terminated, you then could theoretically be held liable for any adverse medical effects that they might experience, like death. You would also need to define which side effects constitute "impairment." Suppose a person was drowsy, drank a lot of coffee, got the jitters and dented a vehicle getting it into a tight parking space. Did the caffeine "impair" them to the point they couldn't perform the job properly? And remember that side effects are invariably identified as potential, not invariable, and that drug companies are likely to list anything that is remotely possible, to protect themselves from liability. Look at how many drugs have the potential side effect of "diarrhea OR constipation."





And the fact that the agency has a one=page screening tool doesn't put the responsibility on the applicant to disclose information that isn't asked for. Six pages will barely scratch the surface.





I'm not trying to rip on you or play devils' advocate, it is just that these types of situations have a lot of ramifications and hasty decisions can lead to a lot of headaches down the road.

 

[StriketheBox]

don't have any experience in these matters but what I would do is give him a real ass chewing about using medications that cause drowsiness and then running a call, as well as driving after taking medications. Hes new, hes learning and I'm sure everyone makes mistakes when there new.

So shut the hell up, and let those of us with actual knowledge discuss grown up issues. Don' :roll: t you have storm to chase??

 

[ncfd4303]

The person was sitting on the pump panel ledge with their head inbetween their knees, then looked up and the conversation began.

 

[TheZach]

Termination isnt being considered because the might have a mental disorder, its on the table because they took a medication that impairs their ability to work safely. If they drank then responded what would you guys think then? Should said person be terminated then? And why? Because they were impaired and could cause unsafe conditions? Isn't this on the same page here?

No, its not. Drinking and responding to a call is negligence, taking medication as prescribed is a necessity. I do however feel this probie should be told not to respond after he takes his meds.

Point is, the person was impaired by a medication, and that they knew what the side effects were; therefore making it a reckless decision. This is a volunteer organization and therefore no paycheck will be taken away.

It is still discrimination on the basis of a disability if you terminate them because of this. Per ADA you must make a reasonable accommodation if the person is able to do the job.

 

[TheZach]

So shut the hell up, and let those of us with actual knowledge discuss grown up issues. Don' :roll: t you have storm to chase??

I'm sick of your uncalled for personal attacks. Grow the fuck up.

 

[unlisted]

No, its not. Drinking and responding to a call is negligence, taking medication as prescribed is a necessity. I do however feel this probie should be told not to respond after he takes his meds.


It is still discrimination on the basis of a disability if you terminate them because of this. Per ADA you must make a reasonable accommodation if the person is able to do the job.

Zach, you have no clue what you are talking about so you may want to be quiet.


Regardless of ANY pre existing medical condition, a person needs to make an employer aware in the PRE-hire stage- this included volunteer positions. If the person in question did not disclose this during the interview/hiring stage- they cannot claim ADA, disability, etc at all.


Back to the meds- if it is ONLY taken for sleeping- than the person IS impared when they decided to respond- end of story. If it is taken to manage a medical condition- than they should be either used to the meds, or know damn well enough NOT to respond to any call after taking meds.

 

[StriketheBox]

I'm sick of your uncalled for personal attacks. Grow the fuck up.

I tell you what. When YOU have the time in that I do, which is a mere 10 years, you can have an opinion. You seem to have quite the opinion when it comes to things. This isnt a personal attack. It is simply you not having a clue, and being on a forum of people who have knowledge and time in the profession. Please, elaborate to me your expertise in the public safety profession. When YOU can do that, I will stop replying to your brainless comments and opinions.

 

[Stendec]

Zach, Zach, Zach....... :roll:


ADA doesn't apply in whole to jobs that are defined as "arduous" and have specific, required performance requirements. I don't know what they are to be a firefighter, but I'll take a wild guess and say that you probably can't be blind, and that there aren't practicable "accommodations" that can be made to enable a blind person to be a fire fighter. Likewise, if a person is a florid schizophrenic, there aren't accommodations that could be made to enable that person to function effectively, let alone without risk to themselves and others, in the field. That's a far cry from controllable high blood pressure, chronic insomnia, or bipolar disorder that's effectively controlled by medication. It's also why a fair yet rigorous screening process that includes an appropriate health screening, medical and psychological, is important, along with periodic in-service wellness checkups. I disagree with UL in that I don't believe that it is the applicant responsibility to disclose information that isn't requested; they, particularly without any prior service may not know, and there are few standards as to what is "normal" and what isn't. If an applicant conceals or provides false information in response to a request, that's a whole 'nother story. Smoking would be the first example that pops to mind - some agencies ask, some don't. I know of a case in which a cop lost a leg, and was returned to full duty when he could demonstrate that he could do everything with his prosthetic leg that he could do before his accident. On the other hand, if an applicant's color or depth perception isn't accurate, they're done, game over.


Firefighters are closer to it than cops, but a nation-wide medical standard similar to what the FAA requires of pilots wouldn't be all bad. I'd rather see that than a federal standard for lights colors.


The ADA is not intended to set disabled people up to fail in positions that they don't have the ability to succeed in.

 

[TheZach]

Zach, Zach, Zach....... :roll:

ADA doesn't apply in whole to jobs that are defined as "arduous" and have specific, required performance requirements.

Yes it does, as long as the person can complete the job with reasonable accommodations as effectively as any non-disabled individual. Now there is no accommodation for blindness that is going to help yet, but in the case of medication if hes taking it for a medical reason that may be under the protection of ADA.


Also not hiring someone who has a pre-exisiting medical condition and hiring someone less qualified just because of that medical condition opens you up to a discrimination lawsuit. If the person has a pre-existing condition that is well managed and does not pose a threat to himself or others while he is performing tasks that every other employee must perform it can not be a disqualifying criteria. If he can't perform minor tasks of the job an accommodation must be provided as long as it does not cause undue hardship on the employer.


I'm not against psychological and health screening in employment, I think its in fact very important. You should not put someone who is not mentally or physically able to withstand something into something they cant handle, but I also know many conditions can be effectively managed with medication or other medical means. These are not just mental health conditions, there are many others such as epilepsy.

 

[StriketheBox]

I'm not against psychological and health screening in employment, I think its in fact very important. You should not put someone who is not mentally or physically able to withstand something into something they cant handle, but I also know many conditions can be effectively managed with medication or other medical means. These are not just mental health conditions, there are many others such as epilepsy.http://www.thezach.net/TheZach