This may not be Magic vs. Bird or Biggie vs. Tupac. Those battles are too close to call.
But, if I were to ask you which side of the country, east coast or west coast, would offer greater judicial support for the employment rights of medicinal-marijuana cardholders, you’d say west for sure, right?
And you’d be wrong… Continue reading
Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held (here) that a local employer may have a duty to accommodate an employee’s use of medicinal marijuana. You can read more about that decision at Jon Hyman’s Ohio Employer’s Law Blog.
Wait, what? If marijuana is still considered an illegal drug under federal law — it is — what duty could an employer possibly have to accommodate an employee’s use of marijuana, even for medical purposes?
Maybe, it’s not so clear. Continue reading
The Beatles lyric is also the opening line from a recent state court opinion about hiring (or not hiring as the case may be) someone who uses medical marijuana. More on that in a bit. Continue reading
Pennsylvania is about to become the second Commonwealth in the United States to legalize medical marijuana. (23 states — la di da, states — plus DC currently allow it)
Does this mean that employees with migraines can puff vape pens and eat Cheetos in your break rooms at work? Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works.
I’ve blogged (here) that grilling a medical marijuana user about her disability, just before firing the employee, could give rise to a viable disability-discrimination claim. In other words, where the disability (as opposed to the medical marijuana use) motivates the employment action, that’s discrimination.
I’ve blogged before (here) that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect illegal drug use by employees. So, if the illegal drug use, and not the disability, motivates a company to fire an employee, that’s perfectly legal.
An alcoholic employee can present a number of tricky legal issues affecting the workplace. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there’s a certain dichotomy. That is, alcoholism is a disability under the Act. However, an employer can ban alcohol in the workplace and require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
But what about an alcoholic employee, who, while remaining sober at work, seeks a leave of absence to treat?
Ok. Let’s assume that I’m looking to fill another Blogprentice position here at the Bloggerdome.
[FYI – The Blogprentice’s job is to massage my scalp during those brief periods of writer’s block or when I get the vapors, rub my feet at all other times, plus whatever tasks, reasonable or unreasonable, I may assign from time to time. Job pays minimum wage. And, by that, I mean compliments. That is to say, part of the job is to compliment me. Another part is to make sure I’m using compliment correctly (instead of complement)].
All hires must then pass a background check and drug screen. Continue reading
After the jump, what employers can learn from a possibly botched drug test and the failure to hire a Rastafarian
(Or an excuse for me to make gratuitous True Romance references).
Today, we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Melissa Kluska. Melissa currently writes for St. Jude Retreats, a non 12 step alternative to traditional alcohol and drug rehab. As well as writing for St. Jude’s, Melissa enjoys blogging about health and relationships.
(Want to guest blog on an employment-law topic at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
Ordinarily, I’m reluctant to recommend online modules that help HR professionals create workplace policies.
Like the one I used to create a Borat Workplace Dress Code. Maybe it was the alcohol talking, but I was certain that the one-piece, over-the-shoulder, male swimsuits wouldn’t create a donning and doffing FLSA issue.
Hey, this post got weird quick. Didn’t it?
The Employer Handbook Blog