Question

Equal Employment Opportunity

Exxon employs a number of employees in various companies. If Exxon decided to "fire” Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of the Valdez, what recourse would he (Hazelwood) have under Equal Employment Opportunity laws? Make sure to support your statements with specific examples that are supported by a citation. Support your discussion with at least 2 Internet citations in APA style.

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

The shipwreck at Exxon Valdez may have been caused by Joseph Hazelwood, a drunken captain. Concerns emerged that the incident may have led to his alcoholism, which had previously been treated. Shortly after the accident, Exxon implemented a updated 'Employee Alcohol and Drug Use Policy Statement' which prohibited any employee with a current or past substance abuse issue from holding one of a limited number of 'designated positions.' This policy affects about 10 per cent of Exxon's workers and targeted employees in positions that are highly exposed to catastrophic incidents; those in working positions where a mistake could trigger a catastrophic incident; and positions with little to no direct oversight. Around the same time, the policy also established that "no alcohol or substance dependent employee will be fired because of the need for assistance in resolving the dependency or because of participation in a recovery effort".

The EEOC reported that this policy contributed to the demotion of Exxon employees who had received treatment many decades earlier. "Exxon defends its strategy as supporting work security under which it can not supervise workers to ensure that they do not fall into drug abuse, as well as supporting environmental health, avoiding potential responsibility for coercion and good corporate citizenship". The EEOC sued Exxon, alleging that the program violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which forbids discrimination on the grounds of disability in jobs. The EEOC claimed that the policy of Exxon to prohibit drug abusers from holding specified safety-sensitive roles was subject to a criterion of 'direct danger' as it excluded a particular category of people, drug abusers. "To pass muster under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers who enforce specific requirements of safety training as a business requirement are not needed to prove that the workers affected pose a 'reasonable danger' of injury, the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court has ruled."

The court ruled in favor of Exxon Inc., denying the ADA's 'primary violation' to EEOC clauses. The matter was sent for appeal to the 5th Circuit, where the court said "the direct danger test only applies in those cases where employers respond to the supposed risk of an individual employee that is not covered by an established qualification requirement. The court observed that the standard of direct danger is not inherently more difficult to reach than the standard of business need, though the two require different types of proof. Specific danger situations focus on particular workers and the threats posed by their unique conditions, while employers are expected to explain the norm as a cross-cutting condition in situations of business necessity ". In Exxon's case, for former drug addicts to relapse the rate of recurrence was high, which represented a safety risk appropriate for business necessity.

Had Exxon dismissed Captain Hazelwood as a result of his alcohol-related incident with the Valdez, the captain may have recourse under Equal Employment Opportunity legislation and the Americans with Disabilities Act for unfair termination. Instead of terminating his work, Exxon should place the captain with the company in a different role, one of which is not vulnerable to health. The company's new policy indicated that workers who were former or current drug abusers were no longer able to hold those positions, which included just around 10 percent of the employment available with the firm. When a drug abuser comes forward with their illness, adequate services will be made. Since the other 90 percent of the work with the company is not responsive to health, Exxon will have plenty of opportunity to move the captain to another job, or give him the option to resign.

References:

Workplace Violence 911 (2000). ADA’s ‘Direct Threat’ Does Not Apply to Existing Qualification Standard. Retrieved April 4, 2016.

FindLaw (2000). EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. EXXON CORPORATION. Retrieved April 4, 2016.