shall report any convictions for motor vehicle offenses other than parking violations to the state that issued the commercial driver’s license, as well as to the employer, within 30 days.35 Diabetes-related incidents should be reported to the state licensing authority in the same manner as other potentially disqualifying events.
A number of States offer exemption, waiver, or grandfather programs for drivers with
ITDM. Other States exception/exemption.
do not allow drivers with ITDM to Would States that prohibit drivers with
operate without an ITDM from operating
CMVs continue to do so or would States adopt
commercially in these States?
If these States have
rules comparable with the new ITDM are currently operating any evidence as to whether ITDM
drivers operating CMVs are as diabetic drivers or non-diabetic
safe, safer, or drivers, FMCSA
less safe than non-insulin would like these States to
special oversight that States conduct.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act36
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,37
state may no longer maintain a system of blanket exclusion of all drivers with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Such a system was only lawful in prior years because of the federal government’s ability to in essence “trump” federal anti-disability discrimination law in instances where another federal law or regulation conflicted with the anti-discrimination proscription.38 Federal provisions changed to an individual assessment system in 2003, therefore, states must either adopt FMCSA’s scheme or adopt another system for individual assessment that meets the standards established by federal anti-disability discrimination law.39
49 C.F.R. § 383.31.
42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213.
29 U.S.C. § 791-794.
38 See 29 C.F.R. §1630.15(e) (stating that “it may be a defense to a charge of discrimination under this part that a challenged action is required or necessitated by another Federal law or regulation, or that another Federal law or regulation prohibits an action (including the provision of a particular reasonable accommodation) that would otherwise be required by this part.”).
39 See, e.g., Kapche v. City of San Antonio, 304 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2002) (acknowledging that Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) mandates individualized inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act and holding that “an individualized assessment of Kapche’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions
of an SAPD police officer is required.”). The court in Kapche and medicine that allowed individuals with insulin-treated
also referenced the advances in diabetes science diabetes to safely drive and to perform safety- Kapche presented evidence of such medical
advancements as portable glucose monitors, routine hemoglobin testing, and improved insulin . . . Kapche also pointed to changes in various federal
improved insulin delivery systems, employment ‘protocols,’ which now
require persons with diabetes be considered on 392 F.3d 896, 903 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating “the
a case by case basis.” determination whether
Id. at 500. See also Branham v. Snow, a particular person with an impairment
is substantially limited must be individualized.”). The inquiry into each plaintiff’s condition remains the rule in
Branham court cases under the
made it clear Rehabilitation
that “an individualized Act and the ADA.” Id.