Kc0iv:
Quote:
You have now moved outside the realm of what D.O.T. has to say and into the realm of civil law. Dealing with the Fair Credit Reporting Act is best left to lawyers. Of which I'm sure you are not one.
In addition I would first find out just what employees have sign and not signed before you make these types of blanket statements.
I'd suggest you stick with what you know and leave other matters to those that do know.
I would not have mentioned the FCRA if it was not relevant. This topic is on driver’s rights, therefore, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act is a relevant issue:
Quote:
§ 613. Public record information for employment purposes [15 U.S.C. § 1681k]
(a) In general. A consumer reporting agency which furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes and which for that purpose compiles and reports items of information on consumers which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer's ability to obtain employment shall
(1) at the time such public record information is reported to the user of such consumer report, notify the consumer of the fact that public record information is being reported by the consumer reporting agency, together with the name and address of the person to whom such information is being reported; or
(2) maintain strict procedures designed to insure that whenever public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to date. For purposes of this paragraph, items of public record relating to arrests, indictments, convictions, suits, tax liens, and outstanding judgments shall be considered up to date if the current public record status of the item at the time of the report is reported.
(b) Exemption for national security investigations. Subsection (a) does not apply in the case of an agency or department of the United States Government that seeks to obtain and use a consumer report for employment purposes, if the head of the agency or department
makes a written finding as prescribed under section 604(b)(4)(A).
The scope of my duties have required I expand my knowledge base into OSHA, EPA, INS, and NTC territory. It's difficult to advise people of their options if you don't know the sorce.
Useless:
Quote:
Now, you are talking in circles, Myth Maker!!
One moment, you want to paint your cut and paste quotations as being "Black and White"; the next thing you know, when someone calls a Bull &h*t Alert on you with your own previous contradictory postings, you try to argue that the situation is not always so black and white!!
The post started with
”What if”, the question was asked to reiterate the importance of drivers to know their rights.
Kc0iv:
Quote:
Myth_Buster The case you refer to was not case law. It was a ruling BEFORE THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION with a reference to another ruling by them IL-2004-02 16-USO769. This is not case law like your example of Roe v Wade.
Since this ruling was only signed on Jan 3, 2007 and WEST AGRO, INC. has 20 days to petition for reconsideration the final outcome is yet to be determined. In addition WEST AGRO could go to court and challenge this ruling. I doubt this would happen being the amount is only $6,500. Not a large amount seeing the size of WEST AGRO, INC. Who I use to work for their parent company DeLavel a division of Alfa Laval a multi-billion dollar company.
So Myth_Buster if you are going to cite case law then quote case law not some ruling by FMCSA. Or maybe you don't know the difference. In that case I suggest you talk to one of the many lawyers at FMCSA and have them explain the difference.
kc0iv
The decision was made by the Chief Safety Officer after hearing the attorney’s objections to the case. The CSO sets case law for the FMCSA.
Glasman2:
Quote:
Forgot to answer this...
IT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED THAT A DOCTOR GAVE ME MORPHINE.
That was a really stupid example.
No, the example provided a situation where a driver could tests positive and without the safety net provided by the FMCSR a driver could be terminated for a drug test when the drugs were prescribed.
Folks, I’ll leave you with this. The topic is real, the call was real, the situation is real, I provided a shorter version of the message to simplify the jargon.
For those interested feel free to absorb the material, for the ney sayers, deal with it. You don’t have a clue of what happens in the industry on a daily basis. Drivers frequently complain they received an unjustified negative DAC Services report. This post is one of two post that discuss the legal issues of employer’s releasing information when unauthorized.
The other topic is here on this forum
DAC Services and Part 391.23
Be safe.