agreement that is contrary to public policy.”). 47 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 48 . E.g., Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l., 861 F.2d 665, 666-68, 674 (11th Cir.1988) (affirming the reversal of an arbitration award’s reinstatement of a pilot who flew while drunk); Amalg. Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, Local Union 540 v. Great W. Food Co., 712 F.2d 122, 125 (5th Cir.1983) (reversing enforcement of an award to reinstate a truck driver who drank on duty); NLRB v. Dixie Motor Coach Corp., 128 F.2d 201, 203 (5th Cir.1942) (permitting, pre-W.K. Grace, a company’s discharge of a bus driver who drank while working his route). But see Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, Int’l Union, Local No. 4-228 v. Union Oil Co. of Cal, 818 F.2d 437, 441-43 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 49 . 712 F.2d at 124. 50 . 768 F.2d 739, 742
holding 12year statute of limitations violated state guarantee of open courts when it would have barred right of actions against manufacturer of drug before they ever existed as it was not discovered until 20 years after drug was administered that the drug caused cancer holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use holding that an arbitrators award reinstating an oil refinery worker who used drugs offsite was not against public policy at the time it was issued before new drug problems cropped up but remanding for reconsideration in light of the further drug use holding extraneous evidence that defendant was using drugs admissible under rule 404b because evidence not offered to show that defendant was drug user and was using drugs at the time of the offense but to rebut the defense of consensual sex holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident