Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:48 am
HOUSTON (AP) — Former Dallas Maverick Roy Tarpley filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday, claiming the NBA and the team violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to reinstate him to the league.
Tarpley, who was permanently banned from the NBA in 1995, claimed in his lawsuit the NBA and the Mavericks discriminated against him on the basis of his disability as a recovering drug and alcohol abuser.
"Tarpley is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, in that he has a disability in the form of past drug and alcohol abuse, which substantially limits at least one of his major life activities," according to the 46-page lawsuit, which was filed in Houston federal court.
Tarpley, 42, said the lawsuit is not about trying to play again but about clearing his name.
In the lawsuit, Tarpley said after applying for reinstatement he successfully completed 52 weeks of drug and alcohol testing, which the NBA had requested. But his reinstatement was still denied, according to his attorneys.
"What he went through and the hoops that he went through to comply with what the NBA wanted and how the NBA treated him was just downright wrong, unfair, and cruel," Joe Walker, one of Tarpley's attorneys, told KRIV. "We're making the NBA and the Mavericks accountable for the way they treated him."
Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:54 am
I love the fact that Tarpley and his attorneys are claiming that making him go through 52 weeks of sobriety was “downright wrong, unfair and cruel” though.
Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:09 am
Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:34 am
Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:03 am
For purposes of this subchapter, the term "qualified individual
with a disability" shall not include any employee or applicant who
is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered
entity acts on the basis of such use.
In July 2006, Tarpley filed a charge of discrimination against the NBA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In May, the EEOC sided with the player, ruling the NBA and the Mavericks violated the disabilities act by failing to reinstate Tarpley, who has passed all drug tests he's taken in the last four years.
Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:08 am
Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:35 am
Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:18 pm
Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:40 am
Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:21 pm
benji wrote:However. This part of the article, which Andrew did not quote I believe is essential:In July 2006, Tarpley filed a charge of discrimination against the NBA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In May, the EEOC sided with the player, ruling the NBA and the Mavericks violated the disabilities act by failing to reinstate Tarpley, who has passed all drug tests he's taken in the last four years.
Tarpley's suit seems to stem from the fact the NBA did not reinstate him, and if the NBA would allow others (but not him) to be reinstated upon the treatment completion and drug test passing, then he may have a case that is stronger than it initially appears.
Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:05 am
Andrew wrote:And reportedly at one point, about gaining $6 million in damages as well.
Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:11 pm
Andrew wrote:Does that mean that organisations and companies cannot enforce their own anti-drug policies because it is in violation of the disabilities act?
Tarpley asserts that the lawsuit isn't about trying to play again but instead about clearing his name. It has to be about damages too because there's really no reason to sue otherwise.
He'll still be known as the guy who was kicked out of the league for drug violations and later sued the league and his former team over a reinstatement dispute despite the fact that he ruined his own career and placed himself in bad standing with the league through his own choices
Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:19 am
benji wrote:Well, we could just get rid of the fascist American with Disabilities Act. Then they would lose standing to sue.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:35 am
Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:00 am
Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:46 am
benji wrote:ADA would get a bad name even without those. It's anti-liberty and anti-democratic, and should be considered unconstitutional.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:34 am
illini wrote:Do you think all civil rights legislation is unconstitutional or just the technicalities of the ADA?
James Madison, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, wrote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:51 am
Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:00 pm
BigKaboom2 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT2YET6sg5I
Some anecdotal evidence for why it's terrible if that sort of thing floats your boat.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:11 pm
Above all else the country is based on "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Any laws in this country are to allow everyone's pursuit of happiness as long as it does not impede another person's pursuit of happiness. Whats wrong with that?
Also you keep repeating antidemocratic. We are not and never have been a democracy. We voted our representatives in, our representatives voted for civil rights legislation.
Transitive Property: If we voted for the reps, and the reps voted for civil rights then we voted for civil rights; Most politicians have a stance before they go in and anyone who votes should know that. therefore, perfectly in the rights of the people.
we should allow people to completely shun anyone they dont like, be it reasons just or unjust?
Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:36 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:01 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:41 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:55 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:29 pm