Prescription Adderall

Greg, your arguments are really convoluted. This conversation started with regard to prescriptions for ADHD, meandered over to people who are deaf or need a service dog, then ended with a series of links to some odd lawsuit pertaining to a woman's shoulder injuries disqualifying her from working for a company.

The only subjects you haven't touched on are the number of legs on a centipede and whether or not light is a particle or a wave.

Focus, man. Focus.

Do you have some actual expertise in this matter or are you just digging up random articles for the sake of arguing in circles?

Greg, your arguments are really convoluted. This conversation started with regard to prescriptions for ADHD, meandered over to people who are deaf or need a service dog, then ended with a series of links to some odd lawsuit pertaining to a woman's shoulder injuries disqualifying her from working for a company.

The only subjects you haven't touched on are the number of legs on a centipede and whether or not light is a particle or a wave.

Focus, man. Focus.

Do you have some actual expertise in this matter or are you just digging up random articles for the sake of arguing in circles?

Perhaps I screwed up on the quoting, I am not use to needing to do raw HTML. I was responding to this statement in a previous quote with recent examples that directly demonstrate that the claim is false.

"And one can go crying all the way to their ADA specialty attorney, but a company's safety and insurance departments can decline to put someone on the road for ANY REASON THEY WANT."

Are you claiming that somehow ADHD medication is not covered under the ADA?

Please explain how responding to ad hominems with actual cites to actual cases is arguing in circles? I haven't seen anything but unfounded opinion in any of the replies.

I am not a lawyer, but do not claim to be an expert in anything besides being someone who personally had to have his physician write a letter to proactively prevent issues before re-entering the industry. In my experience people who claim to be experts typically just don't know enough to know how little they do know.

I do have half a lifetime experience with pseudoscientific and popular media claims about a disability I have.

A very long time ago I sold my families intercity bus company that was in MC174xxx range mostly because the money fell out of that market when transportation for employees tax changed but the concern about the implementation of medicals knowing my position. Not that I was driving much then but I had to have a CDL to deal with sick drivers or when buying a used bus etc...

Before retiring from a good job to go to the Class 8 world I made damn sure I could have a job and stay on my medication and did a lot of research.

FMCSRs 390.3(d) does allow more stringent requirements and there is case law like E.E.O.C. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 321 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2003) but with very real restrictions and in that case Hunt probably would have lost had they not hired some drivers who were taking medication on their expanded banned list.

The point being that yes, done properly, a company could ban drivers who took these medications but it is not due to the FMCSA and they can't do it without strong justifications. It is all about risk management and companies have to make a hard decision and they can expose themselves to violating the ADA.

I have no desire to be an unsafe driver or to share the road with unsafe drivers and this discussion should be on a case-by-case basis and with my fairly recent experience most trucking companies do so. There is lots of empirical evidence that these medications do improve driving safety for people diagnosed with ADHD and that would make it harder for a company to hire someone with ADHD but tell them they can't take their medication.

The law is a complicated and difficult subject and it shouldn't be handled lightly. But the FMSCA own Expert Panel argued to keep the exemption for drivers with ADHD despite the risk of schedule II stimulants being abused for others. Telling a driver that they can be hired if they stop their medication would be really really hard to justify as a safety measure with those facts and I personally wouldn't be willing to take the risk of planning I can justify that if an ADA complaint came up.

FWIW I intentionally included a case with a deaf driver with an exemption because the the current standards are an absolute, no discretion prohibition for medical examiners. That driver had an exemption and it resulted ADA lawsuit and litigation costs you money even if you win.

I don't think of myself as a cautious average driver and in fact when if I ever feel "better" than others I assume some confidence needs to be put in check. But I have over a decade on my medication with no increase in dose and with no real side effects and I even take "drug holidays" to check that I am not developing an addiction. That mixed with a good non-industry job record and a spot clean driving record the companies I talked to had no problem with my medication and they were some of the "better" names here.

The point being, if you can meet the suggested criteria in the ME guide and you don't have symptoms with your ADHD that would cause a safety problem you can get a job as there are lots of companies and not all of them want to discard such a huge potential pool of workers without at least giving them a chance.

But yes, my information is anecdotal and based on my due diligence and a plan to be a small MC again. After I get enough recent experience to know the market and get reasonable insurance rates...if it is worth risking my savings.

Best of luck to everyone, I will go back to reading.

The point being that yes, done properly, a company could ban drivers who took these medications but it is not due to the FMCSA and they can't do it without strong justifications

I believe this has been the point Rick has been trying to make all along. Unfortunately I believe your arguments have very much clouded the situation but I can appreciate your feelings about the matter and your personal stake in this.

Telling a driver that they can be hired if they stop their medication would be really really hard to justify as a safety measure

If a medication may cause drowsiness or somehow impair a person's cognitive functions it is easy to justify asking them to use something that is deemed to be a safer medication.

there are lots of companies and not all of them want to discard such a huge potential pool of workers without at least giving them a chance.

Giving them a chance? In other words, a company should let someone drive an 80,000 pound rig surrounded by innocent families while taking a medication that may inhibit their ability to drive safely and just see what happens??? Like hey, as long as they don't kill someone we did the right thing and if they do kill someone then we'll know that person isn't safe? Does that really make sense to you? Then of course the company is the one who would be held financially responsible for the multi-million dollar lawsuits that would soon follow. That is simply not a risk they're going to take if they believe a medication may prevent someone from driving safely.

Trucking is not an ordinary job by any means. These companies are burdened with the responsibility for hiring people who are qualified and safe to drive. If anything goes wrong the burden falls upon the company to prove the driver was worthy of life-or-death responsibilities piloting an 80,000 pound rig. When you're talking about a desk job then sure, you can take a risk on someone, give them a chance and see what happens. Under life-or-death circumstances there has to be higher standards set.

Again, I can appreciate your feelings and your stake in this matter, but not everyone can be or should be eligible for a job with such dire ramifications if something goes wrong. I personally do not know enough about these medications or conditions to be the one to decide these matters, but a precedent has been set and companies in the end do have the ability to decide which medications they will accept and which ones they will not.

Pretty much what Brett elaborated above.

Keep in mind - a company doesn't have to give ANY JUSTIFICATION as to why they decide to send you home. And please - if you start spouting caselaw if someone turns up an eyebrow when you mention a medication (which you are required BY LAW TO DO), you will no doubt be labeled a "potential troublemaker", and will most likely BE sent home.

You mention the "exclusion of a large pool of potential drivers" - and for all the press of "driver shortages", there seem to be no shortage of applicants. Rather a large majority of any "shortage", is due to retention issues - and most companies would rather flush in a new orientation of 70 applicants (or which, less than 1/2 typically make it to the road training portion) and get on with their business.

Nor am I singling YOU OUT - despite the fact that you have done (obviously) endless research in order to prove your point.

But the FACT STILL REMAINS - from the 10 years I've been HERE, and reading, researching and commenting on posts from people on meds - that companies WILL EXCLUDE DRIVERS ON CERTAIN MEDS FOR POTENTIAL LIABILITY REASONS.

For better or worse - adderall is considered akin to amphetamines. Regardless of whether you are prescribed, not abusing, and your diagnosis is managed - if you get in an accident, the plaintiff will USE THAT MEDICATION to justify potential negligence on the part of you and the carrier. And this happens MORE OFTEN than people win suits against carriers for ADA Discrimination cases.

The landscape may have changed recently - with a HUGE SEGMENT of our population being "managed" on some sort of psych med - but the reality still is - someone on medications that are "mind and mood altering", create more of a potential liability/risk to a carrier - than someone WHO IS NOT. Personally, I think the ADA can tend to be a little "overly broad", especially in a job that is considered "safety sensitive", and despite the risk of potential ADA complaints, would prefer carriers err on the side of caution with regards to folks on meds that could potentially affect their ability to operate safely. It only takes ONE INCIDENT OF ADVERSE AFFECT TO COST LIVES HERE (and a multi-million $$ lawsuit against a carrier).

Please - apply away. Neither myself or anyone here desires to see you NOT get a job in the industry. We are simply seeing THE REALITY that has been related here TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

Our perceived "shortness of patience" comes from the fact that we've argued this point COUNTLESS TIMES through the years. Almost as much as we do for people that drop hot for weed/coke/opiates and claim they've never had contact (not that there aren't instances of false positives). You're sitting here trying to argue and make a case with people who HAVE NO SAY in the hiring practices of carriers. Only relating FACTS AS HAVE BEEN RELATED HERE THROUGH THE YEARS.

And also please, let us know where you you land - so we can make a mental note that particular company is "adderall friendly", so we can point the next person that asks in that direction.

Best of luck to you.

Rick

Eh, Better to resurrect an old thread than create a brand new one on a topic that is already covered... IMO I guess!

Here is food for thought. If i have a cold, my company's safety department allows Mucinex and Comtrex only. If i had an accident and had taken Benadryl or Zyrtec, i would lose my job and "violated company policy" would be on my DAC whoch would make hiring difficult. Alcoholism and drug addiction is covered as disabilities too. But using ADA to excuse a past DUI or failed drug test wont fly. "I am disabled so you must excuse my 2 DUIs"????

Just because someone has a disability does not mean they will get hired. A company can say "we will accept your disability but you must meet these standards." I know plenty of people who were sent home on the premise that they could return after 30 fats compliance of an accepted medication. if a driver chooses not to accept the job on those conditions, it is the drivers choice.

Companies often put "Not company material" as a reason to send you home. Just for attitude problems.

I just saw a court show today where a guy sued because he said he was forced from the night shift to days and it is against his religion. He was offered a promotion and told to switch shifs if he wanted the job. he demanded the promotion but wanted to work nights Because he declared himself a vampire, he said day shifts were against his civil rights on the basis of religion.

The judge said "you had the choice of staying on nights or accepting the promotion. You wanted both You were wrong"

Same with trucking. I have a choice to work for a company who would allow Zyrtec or other meds. They dont allow Trazadone as a sleep aid for or anxiety disorders. They tell people to switch to something else. Those drivers can do so, or seek employment elsewhere.

I just saw a court show today where a guy sued because he said he was forced from the night shift to days and it is against his religion. He was offered a promotion and told to switch shifs if he wanted the job. he demanded the promotion but wanted to work nights Because he declared himself a vampire, he said day shifts were against his civil rights on the basis of religion.

Had a guy down here, Muslim. Got job as a driver for Eagle Distributing (local beer distributor). Then filed a discrimination suit, because handling alcohol was against his religion.

I mean - REALLY?

Rick

Got job as a driver for Eagle Distributing (local beer distributor). Then filed a discrimination suit, because handling alcohol was against his religion.

well they could have been more understanding and allow him to only deliver Miller lite. That crap is basically water anyways

Look, I was "diagnosed" with "ADHD" when I was 4.....a toddler. I'm not a big fan of labels. I DO have the symptoms of this disorder to this day. But I haven't been on medication in about 5 years. I took Adderall, Ritalin, pretty much every drug you can name for ADHD. You know what it taught me? How to be addicted to speed. Just saying....I was 4. Adderall is basically pharmaceutical speed.

I FIRMLY believe that once you label it, there becomes a need to medicate it. If it wasn't labelled, it would just be your personality. I have personally improved myself based on sheer will power and hard work. Being accountable for my actions was a big one.

Anyway, now I'm ranting. The whole point of this comment is to say that if used RESPONSIBLY, Adderall doesn't have real negative side effects. If not used RESPONSIBLY however (and it's easy to "just take one extra because I'm sleepy"), it can take you down a dangerous road. Literally and figuratively. Bottom line is, if you take the prescribed dose every day, there should be no impairment on sleep or driving. In my 15 years of experience. I know that this is not even what the post is mainly about and that it's five years old. That's just my .02

Forgive me but you're replies feel biased and judgemental. Each situation is a case by case basis and if someone has a condition that taking adderall would help them function normally or better, they shouldn't be disqualified from any job if they can perform it.

There are many other drivers on the road with other conditions including alcoholism and depression to name a couple, that should not be but are.

Why should someone's judgements and assumptions stop another from feeding their families?

The point being that yes, done properly, a company could ban drivers who took these medications but it is not due to the FMCSA and they can't do it without strong justifications

I believe this has been the point Rick has been trying to make all along. Unfortunately I believe your arguments have very much clouded the situation but I can appreciate your feelings about the matter and your personal stake in this.

Telling a driver that they can be hired if they stop their medication would be really really hard to justify as a safety measure

If a medication may cause drowsiness or somehow impair a person's cognitive functions it is easy to justify asking them to use something that is deemed to be a safer medication.

there are lots of companies and not all of them want to discard such a huge potential pool of workers without at least giving them a chance.

Giving them a chance? In other words, a company should let someone drive an 80,000 pound rig surrounded by innocent families while taking a medication that may inhibit their ability to drive safely and just see what happens??? Like hey, as long as they don't kill someone we did the right thing and if they do kill someone then we'll know that person isn't safe? Does that really make sense to you? Then of course the company is the one who would be held financially responsible for the multi-million dollar lawsuits that would soon follow. That is simply not a risk they're going to take if they believe a medication may prevent someone from driving safely.

Trucking is not an ordinary job by any means. These companies are burdened with the responsibility for hiring people who are qualified and safe to drive. If anything goes wrong the burden falls upon the company to prove the driver was worthy of life-or-death responsibilities piloting an 80,000 pound rig. When you're talking about a desk job then sure, you can take a risk on someone, give them a chance and see what happens. Under life-or-death circumstances there has to be higher standards set.

Again, I can appreciate your feelings and your stake in this matter, but not everyone can be or should be eligible for a job with such dire ramifications if something goes wrong. I personally do not know enough about these medications or conditions to be the one to decide these matters, but a precedent has been set and companies in the end do have the ability to decide which medications they will accept and which ones they will not.