Diabetic wins IRS discrimination suit

A federal court jury has awarded an Indiana man $78,000 in back pay after he sued the Internal Revenue Service for discrimination.

Gary Branham was told in 1999 he would be promoted to special agent with the IRS if he passed a background check and a physical examination. He was sailing through the process until told his employer that insulin was one of his medications, the Indianpolis Star reported.

The IRS rescinded the tentative job offer, which would have required him to carry a gun. One fear was that Branham might go into insulin shock and become unresponsive.

'They told me that I couldn`t have the job because I posed a threat to myself or others,' he told the newspaper.



http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1070176.php/Diabetic_wins_IRS_discrimination_suit

and I have to say that I kind of see the IRS's point here. If my relatives don't monitor their diet and insulin *extremely* carefully they become disoriented, moody, combative and just generally a pain in the ass. There is no way I would want a gun in any of their hands at such a time. My uncle regularly passes out and has to be taken to the emergency room. Even if he didn't shoot someone, the chance that he have the gun stolen from him while he was unconscious would pose a major threat.

Diabetes is a consciousness-altering illness that can throw the patient out of control very quickly. Would we let a diagnosed schizophrenic become a police officer even if he or she were medicated? And is it "discrimination" if we don't?

yea right.
Yes it is discrimination. Here's what you are missing......

How far was this explored? Is it a requirement that he carry a gun? Can he work with a partner? or
"Reasonable accomodations" such as offer him a job of equal status where he doesn't have to carry a gun.

I knew of a similar situation where a person with a Seizure disorder wasn't hired because they could not drive company cars. But, it turned out that it was basically an optional part of the job. He could have driven his own car if need be, or taken public transit for all they cared. Just the fact that they couldn't insure him made it so that they didn't want to hire him.

It's not that I don't understand what they are going through, it's that I don't want an enraged person who doesn't know where he is or who I am handling a gun in my immediate vicinity. Is that so unreasonable? It's precisely because I understand how dangerous diabetes is that I think this is a bad decision.