Mega-carrier Covenant Transport is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over their alleged refusal to hire a driver applicant because of his physical disability.
When the driver applied for a job with the trucking company, they issued him a conditional offer pending a license check and a drug screening. When the driver told them that he could not offer a urine test due to a medical condition, but offered to take a blood test instead, they accepted the offer. Shortly afterwards, they withdrew their conditional job offer, saying that the driver could not be hired without a urine sample.
He suffers from a condition called bladder exstrophy which is a congenital condition where a portion of the abdominal wall and bladder are missing. This prevents him from being able provide a valid urine sample.
As he explained to Covenant however, he could pass a drug screening if he was allowed to take a blood test. Despite his ability to pass a drug screening however, the carrier withdrew his offer of conditional employment – an action which the EEOC claims violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
When Covenant refused reach an agreement with the agency, the EEOC filed a suit against the company in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuit, filed last week, seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages on behalf of the driver.
Source: gobytrucknews, chattanoogan, wrcbtv, legalnewswire
Ha ha ha..oh ha ha ha….I hope they sue the azzez off of Covenant….Never drove for them, but overall I’ve heard a lotta drivers say they hated driving for them….lol…
This is interesting and is worth fighting,since it was allowed to get this far,one question:can the driver produce urine at all? I m sure he can,opiums and other drugs can be isolated if necessary from other medications within the urine sample, and therein lies the answer: if he has ANY opiums even prescribed by a doctor in his system, he cannot be allowed to drive a truck,as simple as that…but he can be employed doing some thing else in the company,I hope other companies or the ATA file amicus briefs with the court in support of Covenant,this will affect all companies..fight on Covenant,fight on!
Bladder exstrophy
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002997.htm
The key phrase is provide a “Valid and LEGAL” sample.
I’m not sure I understand your concerns. The driver wasn’t refusing a drug screen and he told them up front it had to be a blood screen. They said yes, then chg’d their mind.His circumstance depends largely on whether proper corrective surgery was done when he was very young. My personal thought (of value to no one) is: good for him in trying to get out and work a hard, good paying job instead of sitting home, drawing disability and feeling sorry for himself.
The follow proceedures if you want an exemption to a policy. Don’t just sit and cry. This is a lazy way out. Sit back and get millions of our hard earned money because he can’t follow the correct polices. 49 CFR Part 40.7
@JB I like your personal thought! I have rheumatoid arthritis and take a boat load of meds. Without one particular medication I’d be unable to walk. I enjoy my job and like being a productive member of society. It makes dealing with an incurable progressive disease easier, and keeps me on the upside of life.
Obviously you don’t read well. The condition doesn’t allow a valid sample. He made that known and explained he could give blood. Both parties agreed on that, and it was done. Then Covenant backed out after making an offer violating EEOC. Why try to imply wrong doing on the applicant? Perhaps, not necessarily they may have been better to not agree to blood testing. I see their fight as futile and lost.
If you go back and research the condition he could provide a sample but it wouldn’t be valid because urine has to pass thru the liver which is what filters it and stores the presence of drugs etc, he’s missing the filter aspect which means his urine is showing all the ingredients from soda to the poppy seed on a big Mac all of which would give a false positivie. That’s why he needs to give a blood test for a true reading.
Not true if prescription and have long term requirements! Your body gets use to the prescription! No ill effects! Doesn’t effect driving one bit! So even if he did, it would be isolated and Not a Factor!!! Just FYI Jay! 🙂
Are there drugs that show up in urine that don’t show up in blood or hair
Here’s a website that goes pretty in-depth into the subject:
http://passyourdrugtest.com/urine_faq.htm
(It’s a fairly easy read – it’s written in layman’s terms.)
Basically, the short answer is no. What is in the urine is what is taken out of the blood by the kidneys. If the kidneys are still filtering it out, then it is still present in the blood.
Also, there are alternative methods of testing for drugs, such as hair-follicle testing (which by the bye can be used for a wider range of testing), so Covenant had absolutely no leg to stand on when they gave this guy his walking papers. Furthermore, if the DOT required only urine-sample testing, then the guy could have gotten a DOT-Physician’s waiver to submit himself only to blood or hair-follicle testing as alternatives due to his disability.
You ask me, this is a case of a trucking company just not wanting to take a chance, or just didn’t want to go through the expense of hiring a driver who would require alternative (and likely more expensive) testing. A clear and cut violation of the ADA if ever there was one.
As long as u have valid prescription you can operate a commercial vehicle. .You just can not operate it impaired. .
You can be prescribed opiates and still drive. I don’t know where you got that from. I take opiates every 3 months to get a procedure done and drive. There would be no reason they shouldn’t accept blood in lieu of urine. A hair test and blood is more than sufficient. Sounds like they used it as an excuse. The discrimination is that the insurance companies don’t want people with medical issues. Sucks
Any illegal drugs will show up in your urine as well as your blood
It’s opiates.
@Jay, some drivers can and do legally drive on some types of opioids. If the meds don’t effect their driving AND their family doctor, specialist, or even the doc doing the dot physical states in writing that “these medications do not affect this patient’s abilities to drive” then we are permitted.
You’re totally off the rails…The driver stated he is willing to submit to a blood test. If any opiates are witin his system, then they will be immediately detected. Wow, you’re a Doctor too…Interestingly, anytime a Doctor wants to know more about the patient he/she orders labs, in which blood is drawn, as urine is not an accurate precursor. More importantly, Covenant violated his equal protection rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’m sure the EEOC instructed him to obtain tests through a qualified laboratory. In any case, you must prove your claim with EEOC before the Agancy takes any action. It’s called the burden of proof.
One should wonder if other medical conditions were found in the blood test that made the new conditional hire a possible drain on the company’s insurance pool. This of course is blatant discrimination if found to be true.
How do you get “back pay” from a company that never hired you?
JB, it’s possible they changed their mind after talking to HR and their insurance carrier about the possible expense of hiring a disabled driver. As a disabled former driver now driving a desk, I have no problem believing that scenario. I would thing anything that can be found in urine can be found in blood, and their 180 is not right. If it looks like a duck, etc., and this quacks like a clear violation of the ADA. And thanks for your attitude, of kudos to this person who is disabled and still trying to work. A lot of us are in that boat; we couldn’t live on disability even if we could get it, they sure don’t make it easy. Support from people like yourself is greatly appreciated by those of us who work in pain every day. 🙂 Be safe out there, driver.
Is a blood screen even accepted by FMCSA? Everything that I see in 49 CFR part 40 is urinalysis based, unless I’m missing something. If the FMCSA won’t give the special snowflake a waiver, then the EEOC should be suing FMCSA, not Covenant since Covenant has no choice in following federally mandated drug testing procedures.
Your right, blood is not allow unless this person follows the polices and files for the exemption. Neither should be sued.
No that why they refuse they was trying to get hair a wile back but did not fly
That’s not true because JB Hunt does hair samples. So I’m sure blood test are legal. Urine is just the industry standard
Anything (apart from disabilities that prevent driving a truck) can be given a waiver by a DOT-certified physician.
Doctors don’t grant waivers or exemptions, FMCSA does.
Yes, but they rely upon the professional opinion of a DOT-Certified physician (and will typically grant them based on that opinion).
Incorrect. They don’t grant waivers for just anything based on what a doctor tells them. I presume they promised this guy the blood test option, then found out it’s not a valid pre-employment drug screening method. And if this guy had a “waiver” that allows him to do blood tests for drugs instead of urine, then he should present it and the issue is solved without another damn government lawsuit.
Remember, you get in a wreck, DOT requires a urine and blood test.
Somethings weird about this one. The carrier shouldn’t have back peddled on their deal but unless that can doesn’t urinate at all which obviously isnt the case I don’t see why he couldnt take one. He may not be able to pee on demand but surely something could have been done.
It doesn’t take much urine to complete a Drug screen. I agree.
The problem, or as I was reading it, was that his body was incapable of producing urine that could be reliably tested due to a dilution issue or some such – which arose from the disability.
The DOT regulations say –
§ 40.7 How can you get an exemption from a requirement in this regulation?
(a) If you want an exemption from any provision of this part, you must request it in writing from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, under the provisions and standards of 49 CFR part 5. You must send requests for an exemption to the following address: Department of Transportation, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Under the standards of 49 CFR part 5, we will grant the request only if the request documents special or exceptional circumstances, not likely to be generally applicable and not contemplated in connection with the rulemaking
that established this part, that make your compliance with a specific provision of this part impracticable.
(c) If we grant you an exemption, you must agree to take steps we specify to comply with the intent of the provision from which an exemption is granted.
(d) We will issue written responses to all exemption requests.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008]
If Driver did this then this would not be in court wasting time.
I have solid proof that a Covenant Owned Company, Eagle refused to hire me after I passed everything, including the drug test, because I have a ADA Service Dog. Also, Werner Enterprises fired me because I have a service dog and too many students refuse to go in a truck with a dog. But of course, I am legally disabled with Social Security and have an air tight case of discrimination, oh yeah, I am a Army Veteran also, But no attorney will touch my case.
This guy has no case. He didn’t follow the FMCSA polices to get his exemption.
He should have offered them a hair folical test as well, both are valid if urine testing can’t be done.
They even lie to State Governments for Unemployment Comp. Make you fight 7 months or more! Sometimes even after they give it to you.
They also lie about Inter-Department Transfers! Yes, they say they will transfer you, then say; they never told you that, or tell other companies the wrong end of employment date! They also try and say all kinds of lies & crap about you! They are a Very Dishonest Company! It’s no wonder they still own SRT (Southern Refridgerated Transport) as their “other” Division! Instead of selling them off, as they claim they are doing! (Another rotten to the core company!)They are an extremely dishonest & bad company!!! Stay away!! Very far away!!!
Regulations, sounds as if the carrier is following the letter of the law no urine sample no job. But not the sprit of the law which was to prevent drugged drivers. A blood test is valid test for determining drug use. Some carriers use hair sample which can show drug use up to 6 months prior. I believe there is a little more to this than the story
Really nice operating center in Chattanooga with some really nice office personnel other than that I really don’t have anything positive to say about this company. Most unorganized company I have ever worked for. Office full of employees but nobody seems to know what they are doing.
Another person looking for an easy meal ticket. Makes me sick.
You’re not signing his paycheck, so shut up. He offered another means as a drug test; it was first accepted, then refused. He didn’t go to Covenant wanting a driving job as a legally blind man, or anything ridiculous like that. And furthermore, Covenant hires mentally challenged people anyway, so what’s wrong with a mild physical disability?
The driver did not file the lawsuit, the EEOC filed it on behalf of the driver. This guy wanted to work but that company was more worried about problems down the road with this guy.
The “Jesus Loving” company are nothing more than greedy money grubbing like all the other big corporate companies. If there really was a God they’d all be out of business.
He can hand over urine, but it is probably from a bag, and not fresh, which is not valid. he did not say he could not supply urine. He said he could not supply a valid urine sample. I hope you guys get sick some day.
I side with covenant on this one. The recruiter who said a blood test would be ok was probably simply mistaken. FMCSA rules are very specific. CFR 49 is pretty clear on what is acceptable for president employment testing. If you can’t take a test using govt approved methods, you can’t work as a driver. Sorry life isn’t fair sometimes. Imagine the liability a company faces if they used an unapproved testing method and something bad happened. If you don’t like the rules, work to get them changed, don’t sue the entity who was just following them.
Once again, a DOT-Certified physician could have called upon to provide a waiver due to this person’s disability.
” This pisses me off ! “
There isn’t anyone in the potty with him when he goes pee pee.
It seems to me he must have been going pee pee in a bag. It would still be warm enough in a bag strapped to his waist ,thigh ,whatever.
So, ….he could in fact ,produce a valid sample, …..he just didn’t want to. He didn’t have to say anything about walking around with a bag. Just another lawsuit manufacturer looking for a quick path.
Besides,someone with a medical problem THAT severe doesn’t need to be getting bounced and thumped in a truck anyway.
What I see this lawsuit accomplishing is companies refusing to do pre-hire letters. Which means that it will be harder for new drivers to get government funding to get their CDL’s. Since HIPA laws do not allow recruiters to ask about physical issues in advance (which I think is stupid since it can possibly keep a person from getting employed in this business because of safety concerns), my guess is that they didn’t know about his condition until he got to orientation. Was there mention of it on his original DOT Physical and if so, did they see that physical before he got to orientation?
Hair samples work, as well.
Covenant back pedaled because at first, one might think blood would be better, however, urine shows certain opiates, etc quicker and more accurately than blood. Alcohol can be detected easily in the blood, but it takes longer for some drugs to be detectable in the blood.
I’m going to say that it does not take a college degree to be a truck driver, most of the comments here prove this. His condition does not NOT allow him to pee, it provides inconsistent readings thus cannot be used as a viable testing source. As the hair testing exemption to certain companies has been federally approved this would then lead to blood test approval as well. Just because YOU have not known of this particular disability does not make it any less of one. If a retired soldier had a piece of ied go thru his bladder causing the same issue you would be screaming for hangings at covenant, as one comment said at least this guy was trying to obtain employment and not cashing you’re tax money disability check.
Hello. Wow. Someone whom doesn’t need to pee, awesome… more miles. I pray this individual is not a disability lawsuit chaser. It gives a bad name to the disabled truly trying to overcome.
There was also the 100 percent legal hair sample test available. Something is off with this deal…
I was wondering about that as well. HF tests are more accurate aren’t they?
How effective is hair follicle testing in detecting drug usage?
In comparison to a urinalysis drug test, cocaine, PCP, opiates, and methamphetamine have proven hair analysis far more effective than urine testing in identifying low-level drug use over an extended period of time since these are normally out of the bloodstream in within 3-7 days (see drug detection times). The detection of marijuana is currently less sensitive than the other drugs in identifying low level drug users, but is considered approximately equal to urinalysis in identifying marijuana users. The detection period for hair is limited only by the length of the hair sample and is approximately 90 days for a standard screen.
Anyone who does their research, and has a brain, will never touch Covenant. That Christian facade is a fraud. They are motivated by their own bottom line, nothing more. No different than other big company.
Urine levels tend to be higher than blood levels ( more concentrated ) so is better for extending the window on detection of illegal drug use. As to the point of a dot doc granting a waiver, the way I read the FMCSA, the only medical exemptions currently allowed the waiver are: diabetes, vision and hearing, and limb impairment. However there may have been changes to the federal code that I’m not aware of. This is the link that I got the info from. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/faq/it-possible-get-exemptions-some-medical-conditions
Covenant is a low life company and should be put off the roads. As a driver, you are nothing to them. If you go work for Covenant you get what you ask for. You are nothing but a Dog to them. They use God to get you in their truck, then you see you just went to Hell.
I don’t like the fact that; we have to have a good reason, why not To hire someone. We don’t have a right; not to hire someone, just because.
I also don’t understand this guy’s medical condition. Should he be driving for a living? Especially a big truck! I would not hire him.
Blood test has to be more expensive. How could this person, even do a random?
my guess is they realized constant blood testing would end up costing them.
FMCSA acceptance of a hair follicle test would help solve this problem. But I am not a lawyer so I don’t get paid to argue the pros and cons. Am also bald.
Im pretty sure the full story is not being reported here.
How can he collect “Back Pay ” from a employer that he never worked for ???
Good! Make an example out of em’!!!!!!!!!
I drove 3 years with Covenant and believe me there are way worse companies out there. They had drivers with prosthetic limbs driving for them. Drivers who were unable to take their physical aptitude test because of a medical condition have a job. So I agree there is more to this story. Only a heart condition or diabetes would prevent Covenant from hiring due to medical.
Who would even want to work for this company but a brand new driver anyhow?
He should feel blessed they didn’t hire him.