Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:10 PM
Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:54 PM
Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:46 PM
Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:43 PM
Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:47 AM
9. "Safety-sensitive position" means any job designated by an employer as a safety-sensitive position or any job that includes tasks or duties that the employer in good faith believes could affect the safety or health of the employee performing the task or others, including any of the following:
(a) Operating a motor vehicle, other vehicle, equipment, machinery or power tools.
(b ) Repairing, maintaining or monitoring the performance or operation of any equipment, machinery or manufacturing process, the malfunction or disruption of which could result in injury or property damage.
(c ) Performing duties in the residential or commercial premises of a customer, supplier or vendor.
(d) Preparing or handling food or medicine.
(e) Working in any occupation regulated pursuant to title 32.
ARS § 23-493. Thus, your position is a safety-sensitive position because you repair equipment that, if it malfunctions, could cause injury or property damage. ARS § 23-493.6 immunizes employers from lawsuits over various aspects of a drug testing program, including lawsuits over:
7. Actions to exclude an employee from performing a safety-sensitive position, including reassigning the employee to another position or placing an employee on paid or unpaid leave, based on the employer's good faith belief that the employee is engaged in the current use of any drug, whether legal, prescribed by a physician or otherwise, if the drug could cause an impairment or otherwise decrease or lessen the employee's job performance or ability to perform the employee's job duties. The belief regarding the effects of the drug may be based on information including results of a test for the use of alcohol or drugs, warning labels or other printed materials that accompany instructions for use of the drug, statements by the employee, information from a physician or pharmacist, information from reputable reference sources in print or on the internet or other information the employer in good faith believes to be reliable.
Thus, this section would protect the employer from being sued by you in this circumstance.
Under the Arizona statute, it doesn't make a difference if the drug is legal or illegal. Thus, under Arizona state law the employer could have refused to hire you if you tested positive for the drugs found in percocet, too. The difference with percocet is that it is legal to get percocet by prescription under federal law. So, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) might apply and if so, you MIGHT have a claim to pursue under federal law had you been rejected for using percocet. The ADA does not, however, protect use of illegal drugs under federal law and marijuana is still illegal to possess and use under federal law. So the ADA doesn't help you here.
Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:22 AM
Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:28 PM
thx but your missing the point just because you test positive dosn't mean you are under the influance its not like cocain or meth that leave your system in a day. i will just have to lie like everyone else. guess honesty is not the best policy. thx
I'm not missing that at all. But the statute doesn't draw that line. It instead is written in a way to protect employers who have reason to believe that you are engaged in ANY use of a drug that COULD cause you to be impaired on the job. The fact that you tested positive for marijuana tells the employer that you do use a drug that COULD cause you to be impaired on the job. Maybe you'd never use it in a way that would affect you on the job. The statute, though, doesn't require the employer to take your word for that that it would never affect the job and doesn't require the employer to run the risk of finding that out later. In short, the employer doesn't have to prove you use the drug on the job.
Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:35 AM
thx but your missing the point just because you test positive dosn't mean you are under the influance
No, you are missing the point. The issue is whether the employer may legally refuse to hire a person who tests positive for marijuana. As "Tax_Counsel" clearly explained, the law allows an employer to refuse to hire such a person if the person is seeking employment in a "safety sensitive" position.
Perhaps you think the law is misguided. Perhaps you think the law addresses concerns that may not be relevant in your case. Regardless of how well-taken you subjective opinions might be, they don't matter.
i will just have to lie like everyone else. guess honesty is not the best policy.
Not sure how you think lying will get you around drug test results. And, of course, if you lie to obtain a job, any employer likely would fire you for doing so.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users