Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by incahoots 976 days ago
>also make getting rid of “that fucking guy” easier.

Very much so. An ex-coworker worked for a cardboard factory, attempted to unionize the workforce by providing lunches to workers during talk shops. He was taking liquid cannabis, had a doctors permission, script to get his medical card, only dosed enough for his aliment, and HR was aware.

Management had him take a urine analysis, supposedly workforce wide, of course failed due to the cannabis use, fired him the same day.

Never missed a day he scheduled, good guy.

Working for the city we do routine tests, especially CDL drivers, but from what I understand, they don't look for positive tests for cannabis, so I'm unsure if we're seeing a shift due to the legalization across nearly half the US, or they're specifically looking for opioids.

Just figured I'd share a perspective.
1 comments
MerelyMortal 976 days ago
Not a lawyer, but seems like a slam dunk medical discrimination case.
link
natpalmer1776 976 days ago
First source I could fine, but I’m sure you can find more:

https://www.rkpt.com/business-and-corporate-law/employment-a...

link
MerelyMortal 976 days ago
That's a good source, however the issue that I see is that they already knew about it and kept him on.

You can't say it's okay to use marajuna and then later say, I had no idea he would test positive for marajuna. They should have reasonably known that he would test positive for marajuna.

Maybe it's not a medical discrimination case, but it's definately a case.

link
kube-system 976 days ago
It's a National Labor Relations Act case. Employees have the right to talk about unionization with their coworkers.

The employer constructed the other evidence as an excuse (which is what basically any employer knowledgable of the law does), but the previous approval would undermine the validity of that evidence.

link