Roy Tarpley files lawsuit against NBA, Mavs

[Andrew]

Ex-Mav Tarpley sues team and NBA, claiming discrimination

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.

It’s certainly unfortunate that he suffers from problems with an addiction (or as it has been legally classified, a disability) but it seems to me the only “discrimination” that took place was a decision that was within the NBA’s rights given their anti-drug policy and Tarpley’s multiple violations.

Tarpley, 42, said the lawsuit is not about trying to play again but about clearing his name.

And reportedly at one point, about gaining $6 million in damages as well.

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."

I guess it comes down to the NBA’s policy on reinstating banned players but perhaps completing such testing only qualifies a player for consideration to be reinstated, after which the NBA will hand down its final decision. 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. I mean, to think he fought his addiction and it was all for nothing!

But since the NBA and the Mavericks are to be held accountable for the way they treated him, perhaps Tarpley should be held accountable for his actions, too. After all, it was his choice to abuse drugs and ruin his NBA career. It was his own actions that led to suspensions and bans from the league. The Mavericks continued to pay him in 1992/1993, 1993/1994 and 1994/1995 despite the ban. That’s money they had invested him (not to mention a lottery pick in 1986) that ultimately went to waste. The lawsuit contends that the NBA and the Mavericks treated him poorly, yet no responsibility is taken for the position Tarpley placed the Mavericks in with the choices he made or the damage he did to his own life and career.

[J@3]

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.

I think what they were referring to was the way he was treated by the NBA after he'd completed the 52 weeks.

[Andrew]

That's what I figured but all the same, are they obligated to reinstate him upon successful completion of 52 weeks of testing? Obviously it's a disappointing decision for Tarpley but if the process of applying for reinstatment simply means that successfully completing a 52 week program will make a player eligible to be reinstated - but not necessarily guaranteed to be reinstated - then the NBA's decision would have been within their rights, albeit harsh.

[Sauru]

one thing is for certain, if he wins it will mean bad news for all americans(except the drunken druggies). everytime one of these stupid lawsuits gets filed and then the guy who filed it wins, it just makes it easier and easier for other stupid people to file other stupid lawsuits. no wonder we live in a world where a doctor will watch someone die in the streets instead of trying to help them.

[benji]

Well, we could just get rid of the fascist American with Disabilities Act. Then they would lose standing to sue. (Although I believe it is very hard to profit from such a suit under ADA, the result is usually an injunction.)

I believe Tarpley may have a hard time with this because of Subchapter I of that statute.

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.

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.

[jonthefon]

As some have said:

The mavs should be suing him for being a waste of talent.

[artestfighttrainer]

Totally agree with Andrew. It seems these days most people do not like taking responsibility for their actions. The world needs a mega dosage of Common Sense.

[shadowgrin]

But common sense is uncommon in this day and age. Why bother?

[Sauru]

yeah the world is different now. everything wrong is your fault not mine and if you so much as look at me funny i am going to sue the hell outa you

[Andrew]

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.

I guess that does strengthen his case, though I can't help but wonder where the line is drawn. 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. And even if he is successful, will his name really be cleared? 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 and that same team that treated him so "unfairly" continued to pay him while he was banned.

[Jeffx]

And reportedly at one point, about gaining $6 million in damages as well.

That can buy a lot of coke.

[benji]

Does that mean that organisations and companies cannot enforce their own anti-drug policies because it is in violation of the disabilities act?

I would note the subchapter of the act I quoted.

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 could be looking to receive an injunction reversing the league's ruling. As most ADA cases are injunction only.

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

But he is arguing, that the league violated it's authority by banning him over an irrelevant violation and not reinstating him despite complete adherence to their regulations. Even though they did it for other players over the same period of time.

[Oznogrd]

Well, we could just get rid of the fascist American with Disabilities Act. Then they would lose standing to sue.

I hate that cases like this give the ADA a bad name. This is bullshit, the guys not disabled even if drug addiction is considered it by the ADA. I also hate the idiots who do things like sue strip clubs cuz the stage is too high and shit like that. The ADA is meant to protect, not give you a reason to sue and it sucks that it usually isn't used for its original intent.

[benji]

ADA would get a bad name even without those. It's anti-liberty and anti-democratic, and should be considered unconstitutional.

[Sauru]

drinking and doing drugs is not a disability period. i dont give a shit how many different groups come out and say it is, i dont even care if its legally a disability now, it aint. like i said before, bad news if he wins anything(which i am sure he will since thats the country we live in now)

[Oznogrd]

ADA would get a bad name even without those. It's anti-liberty and anti-democratic, and should be considered unconstitutional.

Fuck you Benji...simply put. without this piece of legislation id be a drain on the economy rather than going to college and graduating to become an active member of the workforce. Do you think all civil rights legislation is unconstitutional or just the technicalities of the ADA?

[benji]

Do you think all civil rights legislation is unconstitutional or just the technicalities of the ADA?

I do not believe the federal government is authorized to take away the freedom of, and impose duties on, people.

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.

"Civil Rights" legislation takes away the freedoms of people, against the federal governments' authority to do so. They are anti-liberty, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional. As I said.

[BigKaboom2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT2YET6sg5I

Some anecdotal evidence for why it's terrible if that sort of thing floats your boat.

[Oznogrd]

how is not discriminating taking away freedom? we should allow people to completely shun anyone they dont like, be it reasons just or unjust?

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.

I guess if I go with your idea i can just your hard earned tax dollars for nothing...hmm maybe its not that bad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT2YET6sg5I

Some anecdotal evidence for why it's terrible if that sort of thing floats your boat.

EDIT AFTER WATCHING THIS VID
this computer book guy is a fucking retard:
1. The stat about the number of disabled people only being 4 mil isnt taking into account senior citizens that may have problems not bad enough for a wheelchair or a "severe" mobility impairment, but that does impair them enough to effect their everyday life
2. Businesses WILL NOT accomodate for disabled people, not to be assholes, but solely because they wont realize it. If you arent disabled, you dont think about bathroom stall size do you? Hell I dont think about those grab bars in the stall because i dont use them. Out of sight out of mind is as true as ever.
3. "I would be a loser today"-Fuck off asshole, its called parenting. If your parents do their job, you wont want to be a lazy bum leeching off the government, you want a job, college, a life of your own.
4.Parking Spots- Yes at that instant there is no one in a chair in that spot, but what about an hour from now? 2? 3? You cant predict who will patron your business...usually when i go places, there's MAYBE 1 handicapped spot if its a crowded time, and sometimes none.
5. The business codes are a little much, but push a 40 lb wheelchair on a carpet and then complain. Or try to turn a doorknob without use of your arms or hands.
6. The Braille steering wheel? since when did you have to read a steering wheel? No one says the blind person is the driver and he may not be comfortable with telling whoever his account info/pin
7. The Businesses being sued-Well, that guy was an ass, i cant argue this.
8. Rolling Lawsuits? the guy is on crutches and there are more disabilities than just physical ambulation
On penn's ending diatribe:
America is the fattest country in the world, you really think they're going to park far enough out to where disabled people who truly cant make the trek that far will have spots? of course fucking not. We are a selfish asshole culture. Also, holding open a door: fuck off, i can open a goddamn door. If you'd hold it for me and not someone else, then its actually worse that you think i need the help.
I had respect for this show until i saw this segment

[benji]

Imposing a duty on someone is limiting their freedom. ADA and other "civil rights" legislation place duties on people, restricting their freedom. Infact, "civil rights" often support discrimination. Entitlement or special treatment, the result of such civil rights legislation, is discrimination.

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?

ADA and plenty of other legislation does plenty to impede life, liberty and property. How is placing a duty on someone not impeding their liberty or property?

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.

That does not make those laws constitutional, pro-liberty or pro-democratic.

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.

So, if the 535 members of Congress vote tommorrow to kill all the gypsies, that makes it constitutional, right and means everyone is required to support that? Because some people voted those people into office?

we should allow people to completely shun anyone they dont like, be it reasons just or unjust?

Yes. That is freedom.

[Oznogrd]

1. i said nothing about property, where the hell did that come from? Sure we have the right to own things, but we have the right to own things just because we want to? but about the placing duties: no the government shouldnt HAVE to, but unfortunately if they didn't then even more people would become a drain on the economy in the disabled community...so if you want taxes to go up so disabled people dont die, sure lets get rid of the ADA
2. I didnt say it made them pro-democratic, i'm just saying we arent a democracy so why do you expect our laws to be?
3. No of course not, hence the impeachment process, or even the good old fashioned run the bastard out of town approach
4. No that is anarchy and assholishness at its highest level. Without law, the country falls apart from low to high and all the great benefits we all get from living under a government (be you Aussie, American or European) go up in smoke. I wouldnt think someone as pro-Iraq would also be anarchist
5. What is your deal? have you never run into discrimination? Have you ever been somewhere and tried to walk through a door and physically couldnt? Didnt think so. Ever been kicked out of somewhere based on appearance? No? Ever been told you belong in "special classes" even though you were in the running for valedictorian of your school? Deal with some of that and THEN tell me the ADA is fascist...

[benji]

Apologies for spelling...I am trapped in some sort of time/space tear currently.

1. As is well known, "pursuit of happiness" was originally "property" and is widely considered to still mean that. The concept of "pursuit of happiness" is the right to pursuit of things you want, such as material goods, or property.

2. I expect us to strive towards our democratic ideals. Representative democracy, is representative, merely because there are too many people to have a true democracy. We still possess, as a nation, and political culture, democratic ideals.

3. Alright, so then we did not vote for "civil rights" then.

4. That may be assholishness, but that is liberty and freedom. Requiring me to associate with people is not freedom, it is authoritarianism. I am not anarchist, I am a liberal. I believe in a social compact and federal state for military protection. My Iraq and foreign policy philosophy is rooted in liberal interventionalism.

5. Well, that is too bad you experienced those things, but that does not entitle you to use the federal state to strip away everyone elses' freedom (and require a burden on them) in order to grant you special privileges. Using the state in that manner, is indeed fascist/authoritarian.

[Oznogrd]

Benji, if you honestly believe i shouldn't have the same rights as you because I'm in a wheelchair, i am henceforth automatically ignoring you. Unfortunately the way of society, the mandates have to be place in order to insure that right to vote, piss in a public place, or even just go watch a game outside of my own apartment. I am not taking anything from anyone, i just ask for what you have been given also by the government. Why is that wrong?

[benji]

I believe you have the same natural rights and freedoms I do. I do not believe you are entitled to extra rights or that your existance grants the state authority to deny others their rights and freedoms.

You want the state to treat you differently, and restrict the rights and freedoms of, and impose duties and require burdens on others for your personal gain. I do not because I am a liberal. I believe in equality under the law that represents recognition of equal natural rights and freedoms. You do not, therefore I believe you are wrong. That is our difference.

[Christopherson]

I hate that the ADA gives "equality" to the disabled at the expense of others. If I want to start a business and find a great location but the bathrooms aren't good enough under the ADA. I then have to pay money out of my damn pocket to fix it. How is that fair? How is that equal?

Here is another personal example in which I witnessed many others suffering for the benefit of one disabled person. I went to a very small rural school, one with a very tight budget. Every year it seems they have to start shaving off 1/4 of positions to stay under their budget. So one day, in the middle of the year, this deaf kid moves into town. This forces the school to hire someone to follow him around and sign every lecture to him at the school'l expense. How can the school afford to do this? They were left with few options which included cutting the music program and having to let all of the librarians go. All because of one deaf kid, every kid in the entire town was put at a disadvantage. How is that fair? Another school in the area had a kid in a wheelchair move to town. The school was forced to put in an elevator because of the ADA. Do you have any idea how much installing an elevator cripples a small school's budget? The next year the kid moved away. How is that fair?