Hint: an employer can ban a legal substance.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wash-man-buy-legal-weed-spokane-fired-spotted-news-article-1.1861214

I've done a lot of work for Carmax in the past (and hopefully future), they perform urine samples on the first interview and if you have anything that comes up, including alcohol which has been legal since the repeal of prohibition, you are dinged.

Does failing a drug test tend to get one denied for unemployment benefits?

He has been rehired

queencitybuckeye;1634780 wrote:Does failing a drug test tend to get one denied for unemployment benefits?

I think if you are terminated with cause you are generally not eligible for unemployment. So if you're fired because you failed a drug test I would suspect you would be denied unemployment benefits.

queencitybuckeye;1634777 wrote:Hint: an employer can ban a legal substance.

I was wondering when I heard that. I'm not sure an employer can fire you for drinking, unless you are drinking on the job or drunk at work.

But the interesting aspect here is marijuana is still a federally controlled substance and technically still illegal (these state/local laws legalizing it would be trumped by federal law, but Obama and the feds are not exercising their authority here).

Now since many employment drug policies ban federally controlled substances (at least that's how the NFL CBA works) - of which marijuana is a Class 1 federally controlled substance - then technically you are still violating company policy even if marijuana is "legal".

So until they remove marijuana from the Class 1 designation (which they should), then you're taking a risk if you use even if done somewhere legally. Of course, virtually no companies randomly test employees after hire, so your risk is basically zero so long as you aren't stupid about it like this guy was.

An employer can fire you for drinking unless you have an employment/CBA contract that says otherwise. Even though it is a non-profit, Alcoholics Anonymous has employees and certainly they can terminate an employment status that posts a FB selfie with a handle of bourbon.

Not to take this to the politics forum, but in the USA it is up to the state to establish a protected class and the burden is on the state or an ex-employee to show that an employer is acting outside Constitutionally or contractually rights of the ex-employee. NOT the other way around. An employee can generally have the relationship terminated for any or no reason. And drinking beer isn't a protected class.

Manhattan Buckeye;1635243 wrote:An employer can fire you for drinking unless you have an employment/CBA contract that says otherwise. Even though it is a non-profit, Alcoholics Anonymous has employees and certainly they can terminate an employment status that posts a FB selfie with a handle of bourbon.

Not to take this to the politics forum, but in the USA it is up to the state to establish a protected class and the burden is on the state or an ex-employee to show that an employer is acting outside Constitutionally or contractually rights of the ex-employee. NOT the other way around. An employee can generally have the relationship terminated for any or no reason. And drinking beer isn't a protected class.

Sure, most employees are employees at will. That said, you'd have to be incredibly stupid to fire someone for merely drinking alcohol (unless it is expressly prohibited) because that would reek of hiding an ulterior (and likely illegal) motive, especially troublesome if that person IS a protected class (race, religion, sex, age and in some states sexuality)

Your AA example is entirely different, as that goes to image and mission. Pictures, of anything, that might reflect poorly on the company is a whole different ballgame. Having a beer in "anonymity" does not violate any policy and is not going to be cause for termination unless a company wants to expose itself to potential liability.

The company won't say anything...they'll just say it isn't working out or blame economic reasons. In my 15 years of work I've easily seen 100+ people let go. Fortunately I haven't had to do it myself, but my wife has. Not pleasant, even if the ex-employee deserved it. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't easy to sue your ex-employer. The best most can do is be a nuisance but if you make to much of a ruckus it is a red flag for future employers.

If you're not eliminating the position, there's usually a process most firms go thru specifically to avoid liability (a.k.a "performance manage out"). They aren't going to terminate someone for alcohol, stated or otherwise. However, it is still federally illegal to use marijuana anywhere in the US and violates most drug policies.

It's very easy to sue your ex-employer, it's usually just not worth it. Most places I've been, even relatively small ones, usually had at least a couple of wrongful termination/discrimination suits pending.

You should work for a law firm or investment bank!

In '02-'03 and and '08-'10 weekly lay-offs were the norm. There were a couple of lawsuits or so (from what I remember they involved sexual harassment - not sure about the validity of the claims, but if they were valid they should have brought it up earlier). Suing an ex-employer isn't easy, one needs an attorney to take the case and if there is any potential for the plaintiff to ever have another real job, they definitely need to have a strong case. And it needs to involve a hard discrimination matter, not simply embarrassing your employer with strange public photos.

Manhattan Buckeye;1635256 wrote: In '02-'03 and and '08-'10 weekly lay-offs were the norm. There were a couple of lawsuits or so (from what I remember they involved sexual harassment - not sure about the validity of the claims, but if they were valid they should have brought it up earlier). Suing an ex-employer isn't easy, one needs an attorney to take the case and if there is any potential for the plaintiff to ever have another real job, they definitely need to have a strong case. And it needs to involve a hard discrimination matter, not simply embarrassing your employer with strange public photos.

First off, I said specifically the job is not eliminated, and you counter about lay-offs. Wholly different animal - we're not talking about lay-offs here. And, yeah, it's the liability from discrimination suits that tends to discourage employers from termination without cause, even for employees at will. No HR worth a damn is going to let me fire an underperforming employee without creating a supporting paper trail (which itself stems from MANY, MANY companies being subjects of employment discrimination in the past and having to implement court-ordered corrective/preventative measures).

C'mon, if you're willing to pay you'll have no problem finding a lawyer to take up/negotiate your case. I'm not talking about a contingency case, which short of class-action discrimination suits would be extremely rare in employment disputes. If a person is a protected class, they and their lawyer will make the termination a discrimination matter even if another reason was given (again, this is why companies perfomance-manage out). I've seen it, more than once.

I don't disagree you can be fired for inappropriate photos. The discussion was being fired, expressly or otherwise, for drinking a beer. Not going to happen, ever (lol, except maybe AA), unless the manager and his HR is completely ignorant of liability.

I agree that HR will build a case, but it doesn't take much to build one. I'm unsure of how the lawsuits i know about worked out, but for the most part people don't want to sue because of the hindrance to future opportunities.

This is a very appropriately timely thread. My wife will probably have to let someone go next Friday.....not a done deal but I'd be shocked if the guy is still around by the end of the year. She really hates doing this.

Manhattan Buckeye;1635296 wrote:I agree that HR will build a case, but it doesn't take much to build one. I'm unsure of how the lawsuits i know about worked out, but for the most part people don't want to sue because of the hindrance to future opportunities.

That's true, although I'm not sure of the risk when it's ultimately settled with nondisclosure agreements. Really depends on the position and industry. Most, of course, never proceed to filing and companies settle to make it go away.

And, no, it doesn't take a lot to build an HR case, but you'd be surprised. It's often much more than a minor inconvenience for management, especially for staff-level positions. Generally easier to fire mid/upper level management because of generous severance packages that can be forfeited if you sue for any reason.

Guys, guys, no need to fight. You're both on the same side here: telling anonymous internet strangers how intelligent you are while they laugh at you.

HelloAgain;1635303 wrote:Guys, guys, no need to fight. You're both on the same side here: telling anonymous internet strangers how intelligent you are while they laugh at you.

So only dumb people are supposed to have debates on internet boards? That actually explains a lot about the level of discourse on message boards.

No, we just talk about life experiences, particularly those that might help out each other. Especially those of us that make a living that has nothing to do with our government and public welfare. I'm sure Gut and I would equally be adept at living off of the State and other taxpayers' dime, but we chose not to do so.

I've found the smartest, most successful people in life are the ones who tell people how smart and successful they are.

And I've found the most dependent, and pathetically unemployable rely on the government to give them a "job" - job meaning ruin everything else for productive people.

gut;1635235 wrote:I was wondering when I heard that. I'm not sure an employer can fire you for drinking, unless you are drinking on the job or drunk at work.

My understanding is that any court challenges to Ohio companies entirely banning smoking by their employees have failed. I would tend to think alcohol would fit that precedent (not that I'd agree as a matter of company policy).

queencitybuckeye;1635318 wrote:My understanding is that any court challenges to Ohio companies entirely banning smoking by their employees have failed. I would tend to think alcohol would fit that precedent (not that I'd agree as a matter of company policy).

That's interesting. I've seen some stuff about that, and there is some justification with regards to cost for group insurance. But, again, if you have a specific policy against alcohol/smoking that's a rather different scenario. And like I said before, this likely violates a pre-existing drug policy.

I probably worded it poorly. You're not going to be fired for legal activity that doesn't violate a specific company policy - if you don't want employees who drink, then it would be incredibly stupid and ineffective not to have a written policy regarding it. Codes of conduct aren't uncommon, and that's where they can get you for a FB pic but not for just drinking a beer at a bar. This guy here violated the drug policy and likely the code of conduct getting himself filmed buying.

Anyway, back on topic....I've been wondering how legalization might affect drug policies (especially in pro sports). All it really requires is creating an exception for marijuana.

But, haha, I can't picture any executive/managers piping up in a meeting that maybe it was time to drop marijuana from their drug policy.

Manhattan Buckeye;1635311 wrote:And I've found the most dependent, and pathetically unemployable rely on the government to give them a "job" - job meaning ruin everything else for productive people.

What does that have to do with anything going on in this thread? For someone who has it so good, you seem to spend a decent chunk of time every day working yourself up over subjects like this.

He got his job back.

I think the Cleveland Clinic has no tobacco use policy. And I am sure there are quite a few jobs who would fire you if you came in to work smelling of alcohol, but not legally drunk.