Trucker Says He Was Fired Over His Weight

[beer]

Originally posted by: Amused


A semi is over $150,000. That is unreasonable IF they did not have one to replace the one he broke.

His primary job responsibility is "TRUCK DRIVER." That means any damn truck they need him to drive.

And, again, I fail to see how weighing 400 pounds is a disability when it IS reversible???

I'm lazy. Therefore I am disbled. I demand you hire me to do nothing.

You're just not going to understand, so what's the point?
Show me a clause where you can back up what you say or STFU.
Obviously his case has merit or he wouldn't have been given his job back so quickly.

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure semis are considerably less than $150,000.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what?? dude due to federal highway restrictions for load weight, the semi's you see on the interstates are not even close to hauling what they are capable of. That extra 200 pounds means even less for a semi than it does for a family car hauling 200 pounds of junk in the trunk.

No, what are you talking about?
They're hauling exactly 80,000 lbs -- the legal limit. It has nothing to do with what the truck is "capable" of. That extra 200 lbs of driver is 200 lbs of revenue-generating goods that can't be carried, because the 80,000 lbs is the GVW, including the weights of the truck itself and the driver in addition to the weight of the cargo. And have you ever seen the margins for trucking companies? It's amazing they make any money at all.

 

[Amused]

Funny you linked to the EEOC.

Found on that site:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/902cm.html

16.The mere presence of an impairment does not automatically mean
that an individual has a disability. Whether severe obesity
rises to the level of a disability will turn on whether the
obesity substantially limits, has substantially limited, or is
regarded as substantially limiting, a major life activity.
"[E]xcept in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a
disabling impairment." 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2(j).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: beer
You're just not going to understand, so what's the point?
Show me a clause where you can back up what you say or STFU.
Obviously his case has merit or he wouldn't have been given his job back so quickly.

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure semis are considerably less than $150,000.

In fact, they do cost that much. Although you might be able to get a 20 year-old one with 10 million miles for $40k if you shop.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused


A semi is over $150,000. That is unreasonable IF they did not have one to replace the one he broke.

His primary job responsibility is "TRUCK DRIVER." That means any damn truck they need him to drive.

And, again, I fail to see how weighing 400 pounds is a disability when it IS reversible???

I'm lazy. Therefore I am disbled. I demand you hire me to do nothing.

You're just not going to understand, so what's the point?
Show me a clause where you can back up what you say or STFU.
Obviously his case has merit or he wouldn't have been given his job back so quickly.

Oh BS. The company back-peddled because of PR problems with whiny little bitches like you.

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure semis are considerably less than $150,000.

Oh really? Find me a new full size tractor for under $100,000

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Citrix


what?? dude due to federal highway restrictions for load weight, the semi's you see on the interstates are not even close to hauling what they are capable of. That extra 200 pounds means even less for a semi than it does for a family car hauling 200 pounds of junk in the trunk.

I was not referring to only what the truck is capable of. No matter what line in the sand you draw losing 200pounds of capacity costs money, adding 200 pounds of capacity costs money.

This should be a simple concept.

Å

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Amused
Funny you linked to the EEOC.

Found on that site:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/902cm.html

16.The mere presence of an impairment does not automatically mean
that an individual has a disability. Whether severe obesity
rises to the level of a disability will turn on whether the
obesity substantially limits, has substantially limited, or is
regarded as substantially limiting, a major life activity.
"[E]xcept in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a
disabling impairment." 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2(j).

Funny, keep reading down that page!

On the other hand, severe obesity,15 which has been
defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, see The
Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 981 (Robert Berkow ed.,
16th ed. 1992), is clearly an impairment. See Cook v. Rhode
Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation and Hosp., 10 F.3d 17,
63 EPD Par. 42,673, 2 AD Cas. (BNA) 1476 (1st Cir. 1993). In
addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or
resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a
thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).16

Since the norm is less than 220, obviously he fits into the 'rare circumstance.'

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused
Funny you linked to the EEOC.

Found on that site:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/902cm.html

16.The mere presence of an impairment does not automatically mean
that an individual has a disability. Whether severe obesity
rises to the level of a disability will turn on whether the
obesity substantially limits, has substantially limited, or is
regarded as substantially limiting, a major life activity.
"[E]xcept in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a
disabling impairment." 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2(j).

Funny, keep reading down that page!

On the other hand, severe obesity,15 which has been
defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, see The
Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 981 (Robert Berkow ed.,
16th ed. 1992), is clearly an impairment. See Cook v. Rhode
Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation and Hosp., 10 F.3d 17,
63 EPD Par. 42,673, 2 AD Cas. (BNA) 1476 (1st Cir. 1993). In
addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or
resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a
thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).16

Since the norm is less than 220, obviously he fits into the 'rare circumstance.'

Actually, no. The part I posted comes AFTER the part you posted. (near the bottom of the page) Which means it supersedes the first part.

He is NOT a "rare case."

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Citrix


what?? dude due to federal highway restrictions for load weight, the semi's you see on the interstates are not even close to hauling what they are capable of. That extra 200 pounds means even less for a semi than it does for a family car hauling 200 pounds of junk in the trunk.

I was not referring to only what the truck is capable of. No matter what line in the sand you draw losing 200pounds of capacity costs money, adding 200 pounds of capacity costs money.

This should be a simple concept.

Å

Could it also be that the weight saved is unsprung weight, therefore giving the truck a smoother ride?

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Amused


Actually, no. The part I posted comes AFTER the part you posted. (near the bottom of the page) Which means it supersedes the first part.

He is NOT a "rare case."

Allow me to restate what I said, taking out the nonapplicable stuff:

On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.

I don't think your quote, because it is 'later,' supersedes it. It clearly says he has an impairment.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: AntaresVI

Could it also be that the weight saved is unsprung weight, therefore giving the truck a smoother ride?

sprung vs unsprung has nothing to do with most of the reasons why you'd like to save weight on a truck.

It mostly has to do with you want your truck as full as possible. Every pound the truck weighes is another pound you can't ship with. Same with the driver.

I am sure when they look at removing weight they take in to account that reducing the unsprung weight like wheels, tires, and suspension components has added benefits....but in the end it's really reducing the 'tare'.

A fat guy will only add to the sprung weight, unless of course you have him tied to the axle....that is discussion for another thread....on perhaps a different forum 🙂

Å