Quadriplegic fired for using medical marijuana ruled against

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 13:55:51 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Apr 26, 2013 13:47:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Personally, I agree with you, which is why I said it was also stupid on the part of Dish Network.  They lost what appears to be a good employee over something that doesn't matter, and along with incurring the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, they'll likely have some litigation down the pike. 

But again, we live in a world where businesses are allowed to make and enforce stupid rules, and unless those rules cross certain lines, there isn't much you can do about it.  I'm sure if we talked to your employees, they'd be able to come up with at least a dozen rules they think are stupid or unfair. 

No litigation will happen, the company is covered as long as it has a Federal Drug Free Workplace initiative in place.

As long as the federal government is covering insurance costs of businesses who have the FDFWI the feds will always hold the cards.

You try and blame the businesses for making the rules (which is completely wrong here).  when it should be the feds that you direct your ire towards. 

is there a requirement to have a FDFW in place?

[cme1201]

Apr 26, 2013 13:57:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 26, 2013 13:55:51 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

No litigation will happen, the company is covered as long as it has a Federal Drug Free Workplace initiative in place.

As long as the federal government is covering insurance costs of businesses who have the FDFWI the feds will always hold the cards.

You try and blame the businesses for making the rules (which is completely wrong here).  when it should be the feds that you direct your ire towards. 

is there a requirement to have a FDFW in place?

If you do any work for the federal government yes there is, most insurance companies will have serious reductions for WC if a company has the FDFW in effect.

Small businesses who do no work for the Government (fed, state, local, schools) then no they wouldn't need one.

[formerroomate99]

That is an interesting angle CME. 

[EVT1]

Apr 26, 2013 12:48:30 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:38:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

evt: QUESTION: if a person is taking codeine for leg pain, under prescription, can a person be legally fired for using it at work?

DJ-no. As long as they can provide proof of prescription. Say the employee was sent for random drug screen and the codeine showed up. If the employee didn't let the testing site know he had a prescription for it, the employee would be asked what medications he was on and would he provide prof of prescription. Once proven the prescription is legit, the employee passes the drug screen.

Good point- would have to dig into this but the lab should be involved as well.  Anything with a valid scrip should not be reported to employers at all IMO.  This case was about a particular law to deal with terminations- what I am curious is about what the legislation/regulations are as far as testing labs.  I am sure his atty looked into it but you never know- the lab could be on the hook.  It is all over the map as far as the law goes.


This is interesting:

www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4201
 
   An auto parts manufacturer has entered into a consent decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requiring it to pay $750,000 to a group of current and former employees at its Lawrenceburg, Tennessee facility based on allegations that company drug testing practices violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

  The EEOC alleged that the company tested all of its Lawrenceburg employees in May 2007 for 12 substances, including certain legally prescribed drugs, in violation of the ADA. It alleged that the company required those employees who tested positive for legally prescribed medications to disclose the medical conditions for which they were taking the medications. The company also made it a condition of employment that the employees cease taking these medications, without any evidence that they affected the employees’ job performance. 


Scary- enough of this stuff.  Drug testing is about as effective as the war on drugs and it is time we outlaw it except for cause.  A freaking knee injury is not cause- but hey anything that can potentially get an insurance company out of paying a claim is worth it I guess.    

[Tennesseer]

Apr 26, 2013 14:22:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:48:30 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

DJ-no. As long as they can provide proof of prescription. Say the employee was sent for random drug screen and the codeine showed up. If the employee didn't let the testing site know he had a prescription for it, the employee would be asked what medications he was on and would he provide prof of prescription. Once proven the prescription is legit, the employee passes the drug screen.

Good point- would have to dig into this but the lab should be involved as well.  Anything with a valid scrip should not be reported to employers at all IMO.  This case was about a particular law to deal with terminations- what I am curious is about what the legislation/regulations are as far as testing labs.  I am sure his atty looked into it but you never know- the lab could be on the hook.  It is all over the map as far as the law goes.


This is interesting:

www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4201
 
   An auto parts manufacturer has entered into a consent decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requiring it to pay $750,000 to a group of current and former employees at its Lawrenceburg, Tennessee facility based on allegations that company drug testing practices violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

  The EEOC alleged that the company tested all of its Lawrenceburg employees in May 2007 for 12 substances, including certain legally prescribed drugs, in violation of the ADA. It alleged that the company required those employees who tested positive for legally prescribed medications to disclose the medical conditions for which they were taking the medications. The company also made it a condition of employment that the employees cease taking these medications, without any evidence that they affected the employees’ job performance. 


Scary- enough of this stuff.  Drug testing is about as effective as the war on drugs and it is time we outlaw it except for cause.  A freaking knee injury is not cause- but hey anything that can potentially get an insurance company out of paying a claim is worth it I guess.    

EVT-testing labs check with the screened employee for any substances detected in their system (such as prescription meds) before reporting to the employer of a positive or negative test result.

[EVT1]

So it is up to the labs to determine which law to follow?  I would think a legal prescription in that state would have required them to report a pass on the screen.  This really needs to be fixed by the states that legalized it- I am sure considering that they just made it legal for recreational use they could get the votes to ban employers from taking action over legal conduct since the last law fell short- well appeals are not even close to being over yet so it is a wait and see.  They could at least tighten up the law as far as prescriptions go for now so this doesn't happen to people. 

[diplomat]

Is this a current event?

[The Captain]

Apr 26, 2013 12:40:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 26, 2013 8:17:04 GMT -5 jkapp said:

So you're saying a business shouldn't have the ablility to have certain requirements of their workers?  All businesses have to take marijuana users?  I have sympathy for anyone in pain, but if a business has a zero tolerance policy then it should be able to enforce it to all, without exception.  Or is everyone supposed to abide by your standards?

I am saying a business cannot decide what medications an employee is allowed to take- you see a large problem there?  Next thing you know they fire over any medications associated with expensive medical conditions.

For general users:

A better plan would limit all drug testing in the workplace to under the influence level and quit canning people for what happens out of the office.  Pretty shitty when they will fire some weekend toker but the rest of the office is free to pop pills all day long.

To me drug testing is an invasion of privacy right away- so its scope should be very limited.  If you think someone is on something- fine test them, test them for impairment, I am ok with that to a point.  What people ingest on their time is their business. 

This is the problem.  There is no test currently available to determine the "influence level" for thc.  What does a company do when a guy hanging phone cables 20 feet up in the air fall out of his cage and tests positive?  Worse yet, what if he kills someone and tests positive?  You better believe the company is the one that is going to get it's ass sued, the stoner is just an afterthought.

BTW the same drug policy has to apply to ALL employees in an organization or else you have other issues to deal with.  

It sucks for this guy but there are legitimate reasons for these policies beyond the perception that companies want to control every aspect of employees lives.

[justme]

Apr 26, 2013 13:34:34 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

As a phone operator for a company like Dish, wouldn't you have to do some typing or something?  Aren't quadriplegics paralyzed in all 4 limbs?  Or can you put a quadriplegic and have some motion in your hands?  Or can you be a phone operator and not "pull-up" someone's record or type in any notes?

Dark answered pretty well, but my grandfather was a quadriplegic after contracting polio (they year the vaccine came out ) and was still able to practice as an OB/GYN. I was too young when he died to remember first hand how he was, but from what my mother said he still had a thriving practice - just needed help when it came to the deliveries (and couldn't do C-sections anymore obviously). He also swam for exercise.

[justme]

Apr 26, 2013 16:20:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:40:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am saying a business cannot decide what medications an employee is allowed to take- you see a large problem there?  Next thing you know they fire over any medications associated with expensive medical conditions.

For general users:

A better plan would limit all drug testing in the workplace to under the influence level and quit canning people for what happens out of the office.  Pretty shitty when they will fire some weekend toker but the rest of the office is free to pop pills all day long.

To me drug testing is an invasion of privacy right away- so its scope should be very limited.  If you think someone is on something- fine test them, test them for impairment, I am ok with that to a point.  What people ingest on their time is their business. 

This is the problem.  There is no test currently available to determine the "influence level" for thc.  What does a company do when a guy hanging phone cables 20 feet up in the air fall out of his cage and tests positive?  Worse yet, what if he kills someone and tests positive?  You better believe the company is the one that is going to get it's ass sued, the stoner is just an afterthought.

BTW the same drug policy has to apply to ALL employees in an organization or else you have other issues to deal with.  

It sucks for this guy but there are legitimate reasons for these policies beyond the perception that companies want to control every aspect of employees lives.

I was just going to ask that. Not against pot being legal, but don't smoke so don't care enough to follow, but last time I checked there's no sure fire way to prove intoxication with pot like there is with alcohol. As far as I know THC levels don't mean that much besides you smoked sometime in the last 30 days. I'm also vaguely remembering something about a daily pot smoker can have a higher amount of THC in their blood without being high (because it builds up in their system since it takes 30+ days to exit) while someone who barely smokes can have a low level of THC and be high as a kite.

Once in a conversation with someone who is against legalizing it I asked them if they would be as adverse if there was a breathalyzer version for pot to see whether someone was intoxicated or not while driving. They conceded that if that existed then they might be OK with it being legal. I'm surprised no one has tried to do that - or maybe they have and failed?

[EVT1]

Apr 26, 2013 16:20:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:40:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am saying a business cannot decide what medications an employee is allowed to take- you see a large problem there?  Next thing you know they fire over any medications associated with expensive medical conditions.

For general users:

A better plan would limit all drug testing in the workplace to under the influence level and quit canning people for what happens out of the office.  Pretty shitty when they will fire some weekend toker but the rest of the office is free to pop pills all day long.

To me drug testing is an invasion of privacy right away- so its scope should be very limited.  If you think someone is on something- fine test them, test them for impairment, I am ok with that to a point.  What people ingest on their time is their business. 

This is the problem.  There is no test currently available to determine the "influence level" for thc.  What does a company do when a guy hanging phone cables 20 feet up in the air fall out of his cage and tests positive?  Worse yet, what if he kills someone and tests positive?  You better believe the company is the one that is going to get it's ass sued, the stoner is just an afterthought.

BTW the same drug policy has to apply to ALL employees in an organization or else you have other issues to deal with.  

It sucks for this guy but there are legitimate reasons for these policies beyond the perception that companies want to control every aspect of employees lives.

It is a major problem I agree.  But companies will do what they have to do- they will pay for the damages caused by their employees- it really doesn't matter if they were high in that case- and they will pay for the care for the guy that fell out unless they can show he fell out because he was high- of course it might take a lawsuit.  

It is not like we have a rash of stoner incidents in the workplace anyway- usually it's a drunk person or someone on legal pills that have an incident due to impairment.  Usually alcohol- but of course it get's a pass because in the US it is OK to drink your drug.


Also I would add drug policies absolutely do not have to apply equally to all employees- and they do not in numerous industries. 

[Tennesseer]

EVT-technically, ADFWP policies do apply to everyone in the workplace (that is businesses that have an ADFWP policy). Everyone in the workplace can be tested for probable cause. Other employees may be covered by FAA/FHWA/DOT for other reasons including random, post-accident, etc.

Where some employees may get a pass (such as for probable cause) is at the executive level. Not fair but that's reality.

[EVT1]

That was my point actually.  Funny that the government sponsors this stuff but cannot impose it on their own employees due to the Constitution.  That says a whole lot about these policies.  When even Scalia thinks they are bullshit invasions of privacy it must be bad. 

     What better way to show that the Government is serious about its"war on drugs" than to subject its employees on the front line of that war to this invasion of their privacy and affront to their dignity?

Well put.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 14:01:51 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Apr 26, 2013 13:57:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is there a requirement to have a FDFW in place?

If you do any work for the federal government yes there is, most insurance companies will have serious reductions for WC if a company has the FDFW in effect.

are businesses required to do work for the government?

here is what i am aiming @: it is too bad that businesses feel the need to compromise their values to get federal funds.  but that is clearly a choice, on their part, just as it is a choice for me to NOT do so.