Why can't we use blood-alcohol tests, rather than breath-alcohol testing, if we reasonably suspect an employee is intoxicated?
—Sidestepping the Minefield, HR consultant, sales/consulting, Springfield, Illinois
I have yet to read an opinion that suggests that legalized marijuana requires accommodation by employers for workplace use, even for medicinal purposes.
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an employer to guess and play detective.
As the popularity of e-cigarettes continues to grow, there’s still no definitive ruling on the safety and proper regulation of the tobacco-free alternative. It’s up to employers to fill in the gaps.
The ADA protects 'alcoholism' as a disability, but there is a difference between alcoholism and being drunk at work, which the ADA absolutely does not protect.Read More
An injured worker with a painkiller addiction not only represents a health and safety concern for that individual, but also presents potential liabilities for the employer.Read More
Test randomly and test for cause. There is no need to regulate employees’ off-duty lives by requiring abstinence.Read More
Surprisingly, the ADA is silent on these issues. But the 6th Circuit federal court attempted to give us some answers.Read More
The ADA is never going to cover any employee who uses substances at work, let alone one who’s in an altered state a result.Read More
Even with legalized pot laws on the books in 20 states, it’s still unclear how medical and recreational marijuana fits into workplace drug and alcohol policies.Read More