Would Tarpley have gotten any money from his last NBA contract if he had been reinstated in 2003? If not, reinstatement would've been an empty gesture as his chances of making a team roster would have been next to nothing. He was in his late 30's and almost ten years out of the NBA.

 Peter -- 8/03/2007 3:14 PM  

This is a sad commentary on our society. It looks like a total setup by a hapless loser with nothing left to lose so he sues someone. It reminds me of those cases where someone burglarizes a house and gets hurt and then sues the homeowner for the injuries. It's sadly humorous that the EEOC purports to determine who has the ability to play in the NBA and then lets him sue off of that. What evidence did they have - some expert testimony? The guy had not played ball anywhere in 3 years, let alone play at a high level. If he could have played in the NBA, then he could have played in a minor league or abroad. But evidently he didn't, so how likely is it that he could have played in the NBA? I guess cynically what this teaches is the NBA should have just reinstated him and let him tryout. He would not have gotten a contract from anyone and they would not have gotten sued. Also humorous is that Stern used to be a labor lawyer.

 Anonymous -- 8/03/2007 3:38 PM  

I'm baffled by the EEOC's decision. That ADA states that drug addiction is not a disability within the meaning of the Act. Tarpley was banned for life for failing drug tests. QED his punishment does not violate the ADA. In theory, the policy could potentially violate the ADA if it had a disparate impact on the disabled, but I don't see how that could be the basis for the decision.

Does anyone know anything more about this? Did the EEOC buy that the NBA is still disciplining Tarpley for perceived alcoholism?

 Anonymous -- 8/03/2007 5:35 PM  

The way I read this, the EEOC was unable to successfully mediate the dispute between Tarpley and the NBA. It doesn't mean that Tarpley will be successful in a lawsuit against the NBA by any means, if he even chooses to pursue it that is. This is a huge uphill battle for Tarpley. He says right now it's all about him "getting his name back" and "being able to help someone who's struggling with issues." I'm not sure how that translates into a viable legal claim.

 Rick Karcher -- 8/04/2007 9:16 AM  

Couldn't the NBA legitimately argue that Tarpley was thrown out because of drug useage and DWI, not alcoholism? When is enough, enough???

(Follow-up: Whatever happened to the case in Illinios (I think), in which a 17-year-old basketball player, booted out for being drunk--a violation of any number of rules, much less the law--tried using the ADA to get himself reinstated, claiming that he was covered by ADA as an alcoholic?)

This sounds as bad as Steve Howe, who was tossed out of MLB seven times, only to be reinstated by court order or arbitrator on the last FOUR occasions!

 Anonymous -- 8/04/2007 12:48 PM  

I need to go back and look at that 1986 draft again. There were some odd occurrences that year for sure.

 mesa arizona auto insurance, car, home owner insurance -- 8/05/2007 11:24 AM  

Prof. Karcher:

I don't understand how you square your view with the following quote from the article linked to in the post: "The EEOC ruled that the NBA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to reinstate Tarpley, 42, who has passed all drug tests taken in the last four years, EEOC District Director Spencer Lewis wrote in a letter of determination dated May 17. The letter was sent to Tarpley, the Mavericks and league attorneys."

Of course, just because the EEOC says a violation occurred does not mean Tarpley will win in federal court. But I do not understand how the EEOC could have reached its conclusion.

 Anonymous -- 8/05/2007 2:31 PM  

To clarify a point about the ADA, drug addiction is specifically cited as placing a person in a protected class.

What is not protected is the current use of illegal drugs, which is specifically cited as being outside the protections of the ADA.

The ADA says "Current illegal use of drugs means illegal use of drugs that occurred recently enough to justify a reasonable belief that a person's drug use is current or that continuing use is a real and ongoing problem."

It goes on to say, in the definition of disability, that "Disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.

(1) The phrase physical or mental impairment means --

(iii) The phrase physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism;"

I'm not sure how the collective bargaining agreement, which supports the lifetime ban, will play into how the court views this situation.

BTW, Tarpley played for several years in Europe. He was still injury prone and still productive in a competitive environment that sends players to the NBA.

 zak822 -- 8/06/2007 11:37 AM  

zak822, I don't think that DWI or DWAI (the lesser of the "drunk driving" charges, usually between .04 and .08 in Colorado) is covered under the ADA; further, the NBA could also--if the clause exists--toss Tarpley under a clause similar to "conduct bringing the league into disrepute".

Prof. Karcher (or any of the other hosts): How can the EEOC legally even be involved??? Tarpley was tossed out over failed drug tests and drunk driving--neither of which is under the ADA--and, as a condition of reinstatement, he failed again! At this rate, this misuse of the ADA will make it nearly impossible to fire someone for being drunk on the job--or drunk at school, to the point of being tossed off his high-school team.

 Anonymous -- 8/06/2007 9:19 PM  

"Tarpley played for several years in Europe. He was still injury prone and still productive in a competitive environment that sends players to the NBA."

Thats true!

 Sport Forward -- 8/07/2007 4:34 AM  

My guess is Tarpley's argument goes something like this:

1) I am an alcoholic and a drug addict (both protected disabilities under the Act).
2) I was banned from the NBA because of past drug and alcohol use.
3) When I applied for reinstatement in 2003, I had been sober for ___ years--a long enough period of time that no reasonable person could believe that my use is current or a real and ongoing problem).
4) The refusal to reinstate me thus cannot be based on unprotected current drug/alcohol use, but on my protected condition as an alcoholic/drug addict.

This is not a parade-of-horribles situation. The argument (and the EEOC's acceptance of it) does not prevent employers from firing employees who are drunk or high on the job. It only prevents them refusing to hire them based on a long-enough-ago incident (how long that must be is unclear) when all indications are that the employee truly has cleaned up his act.

Now, a ruling such as this might force teams and leagues into more "Steve Howe" situations: Take more chances on reinstating past drug-users and, perhaps, getting burned by it. But the ADA is, in part, about second chances.

 Howard Wasserman -- 8/07/2007 8:25 AM  

I agree with Howard's comments. I just wonder whether there should be a labor exemption to the ADA, similar to the way the antitrust exemption works. It's definitely a mandatory subject, and if management and labor have negotiated at arms length, shouldn't claims that assert rights inconsistent with the CBA be exempt?

 Rick Karcher -- 8/07/2007 12:43 PM  

Very sorry for Tarpley, who’s addiction to cocaine and alcohol has ruined his initial career. The anti-drug messages "Just Say No to drugs" and a dire warning: "This is your brain on drugs” should be spread across the kids and also we should give information on Damage Drugs Cause. To make this world totally drug free we got to detox our selves in the first place with the detox drinks and capsules which are available . Let’s detox ourselves and stop using drugs in future

 madhu -- 8/07/2007 10:50 PM  

Does anyone know how to get a copy (or even if you can) of the EEOC decision?

 Eric -- 8/10/2007 4:43 PM  

Post a Comment