Medical marijuana patient protection from drug test: actual effectiveness of the law? I'm under the impression that in Pennsylvania, medical marijuana users are protected from employer discrimination: No employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges solely on the basis of such employee's status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana. Section 2103(b)(1), Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, 2016. How does this work in practice? Particularly, does it protect &quot;green card&quot; holders from a positive drug test during the hiring process? Is it correct that withdrawing a job offer based on a test positive for THC products would be illegal by this legislation? If so, to what extent do employers feel bound by this act (currently, in Pennsylvania); i.e. whether in knowing or unknowing defiance of this act, would a company be likely to feel comfortable withdrawing a job offer after a positive test? Thank you.
It works by prohibiting discrimination based on use of medical marijuana, thus it limits employer actions w.r.t. hiring, firing, and on the job treatment. It is not an absolute prohibition. §2103(b)(3) states that Nothing in this act shall require an employer to commit any act that would put the employer or any person acting on its behalf in violation of Federal law. Since employers may be subject to federal drug-free workplace rules, detectable usage of medical marijuana is a fireable offense on such jobs, until the federal regulations are eliminated. The law is also clear that this does not create a right to be under the influence while on the job, and §510 lists definite prohibitions against actions while under the influence. As for the question of whether the law prohibits discrimination based on simple possession of a card but does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of actual use (leaving aside the preceding disclaimers), this has been decided in Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Systems, Inc. – it's not just card-possession that is protected. Indeed, the hospital in this lawsuit did not contest the claim that the law protects employees who use medical marijuana, the dispute was over whether a cause of private action was created (can a fired employee sue? &quot;Yes&quot;, says the court). See also Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps.
Yes and no. While there are no general laws that ban the display of offensive symbols, they are prohibited in certain circumstances. Significantly, this is in the workplace. It is illegal to discriminate on the following bases in the workplace: Race Sex Pregnancy Religion National origin Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status) Age (for workers over 40) Military service or affiliation Bankruptcy or bad debts Genetic information Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees) For instance, in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (1998), the majority found: a plaintiff claiming employment discrimination based upon race could assert a claim for a racially hostile work environment, in addition to the classic claim of so-called "disparate treatment." Since you haven't been specific about the nature of the offensive symbol, some examples might be: displaying a swastika displaying sexually offensive material displaying racially offensive material These are likely only to apply if the employer ought to have known, or did in fact know, that an employee (or in some cases, the customers) of a business would be offended, or it would amount to discrimination. Of course, a single display of only the symbol is not likely, on its own, to create a hostile work environment - it would need to be considered with the rest of the facts - but it can certainly be a contributing factor. It's a bit difficult to list all the situations where similar laws might apply, but this is one of the most prominent (and, to be honest, one of the ones that I'm personally interested in).
It depends. There is a law, 29 USC Ch. 22, which generally prohibits employers from requiring polygraph tests before or during employment. However, there are exceptions. It only limits private employers, not governments; certain private employers are allowed to require such tests. The exemptions are set out here. They broadly fall into &quot;government security concerns&quot; (defense subcontractors etc.), security firms, and drug companies. The penalties to be visited on violators are spelled out here.
It ultimately depends on what Congress said when the relevant law was passed pertaining to that form of discrimination, how the enforcing agency has written the regulations, orders that have been issued, and how the courts have interpreted the law and regulations. EEOC Notice 915.002 states that Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), an employer may ask disability-related questions and require medical examinations of an applicant only after the applicant has been given a conditional job offer. Such questions must be "job-related and consistent with business necessity". There is a statutory underpinning to this declaration, 42 USC 12112(d) that The prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries and Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability. except that A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions. EEOC also says that In general, it is assumed that pre-employment requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. Therefore, employers should not request information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race unless it has a legitimate business need for such information. Such inquiries are illegal in the sense that the EEOC "prohibits" it, and in the case of disability there is a direct statutory mandate to prohibit it. There is a legal principle, "Chevron deference", that says that the courts should defer to an agency's interpretation as long as Congress hasn't directly addressed the question and the interpretation is not unreasonable. Title 29(A)(35)(B) states the standards for detecting age discrimination for entities receiving federal funds, and while age discrimination is illegal, asking a person's age is not prohibited by specific regulation. The EEOC provides this manual regarding general race and color discrimination, and the section on "Evaluating employment decisions", where they say determining whether race played a role in the decisionmaking requires examination of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. The presence or absence of any one piece of evidence often will not be determinative. So asking a person's race is not per se a violation of the law, but it is an act interpreted by the EEOC to be evidence of race discrimination. On the other hand, asking about disability is totally illegal so there's no "totality of evidence" to the process. The footnotes in the manual point to relevant case law: there is no case law that says "asking a questions about a protected category is per se proof of discrimination", but it can be used as part of a pattern of evidence.
The question of a patient's legal responsibility would arise under a negligence lawsuit, where the patient &quot;should have known&quot;. The standard for determining what things a person &quot;should have known&quot; is fluid, but obviously you can start with &quot;could have known&quot;. If a patient's can't know a fact, they cannot be said to have negligently contributed to the damage. Doctors are given these warnings, but patients are not, uniformly. It is therefore possible that a patient was never warned of the effects of an opioid prescription (I can personally attest to that lacuna in the system). Your assumption about the bottle being so labeled is only valid for the original supply bottles from which the pharmacist dispenses. However, there is also a rather compelling argument to the effect that no person in the US can in fact be unaware of the addiction risk of opioids. It is a defeasible argument, possibly applicable to a hypothetical person who has lived in complete isolation for decades. A patient is not required to undertake independent research in order to validate the science that underlies statutorily-mandated FDA approval or drugs, instead, the burden is assigned to the manufacturers and distributors (primarily doctors and pharmacists) to convey the relevant information. Thus HR 1026 would, if enacted, mandate a different warning. But the bill does not assert a lack of liability on either side, therefore the question reduces to the &quot;simple&quot; matter of determining if a person knew or should have known.
The employer might be liable for a discrimination claim, under the doctrine of disparate impact. See Texas Department of Housing &amp; Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc and references cited therein. The idea is that an employer can be liable absent proof of intentional discrimination when a practice disproportionately affects protected classes of individuals, and the practice is not justified by reasonable business considerations. So it would depend on why this particular state of affairs in employment came about. There is a test known as the 80% rule which attempts to quantify the notion of "under-representation" as evidence of discrimination. This test (not widely respected by the courts these days) might constitute evidence of discrimination, if a protected class is demonstrably under-represented. The current standard seems to be by comparison to random selection. In EEOC v. Sambo's of Georgia, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86, the court found that a grooming policy had a disparate impact on members of a religion (Sikhism), and was thus contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although a requirement to shave does not obviously discriminate on the basis of religion. This points to an important element of a successful disparate impact claim, that there has to be a policy with a causal effect. In the above scenario, there is no proposed policy that has this effect. Note that the burden of proof is on the person suing for relief – they must have a theory of something the company does that causes this hiring pattern, a practice that is discriminatory. The identified policy (whatever it might be) could be justified by a business necessity defense (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424), by showing that the practice has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job. That, b.t.w., would not excuse a racially or religiously discriminatory hiring policy for a factory manufacturing menorahs or kinaras. If a company recruiting locally in Boise ID had a 75% black work force, it would be reasonable to suspect that something was up. But legally, without showing that this results from a unjustified policy of the company, mere statistically anomalous distribution is does not sustain a claim of discrimination.
See the answer to this question. It is remotely possible that it will show up, but the new S.C. law also says that an employer cannot use that information. On the other hand, that law is not yet effective (it becomes effective Dec. 27 2018), so for the rest of the year, the information could be used, if an employer obtains is. There is a law-enforcement exception that arrests can always be used against you if you apply for a law-enforcement related job. Under the current law (has been in effect for a while), the record is "under seal", so revealing the record in the course of a background check would be a violation of the relevant court order. The law specifies a punishment for illegal disclosure: A person who intentionally violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. however, accidental disclosure is not a crime. You might think that you could at least sue them for accidental disclosure, but the law also says Unless there is an act of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, nothing in this section gives rise to a claim for damages against the State, a state employee, a political subdivision of the State, an employee of a political subdivision of the State, a public officer, or other persons. If the government person who releases the information intentionally does so, you can sue. Perhaps an accidental release could be found to be grossly negligent: that would depend on the circumstances.
Welcome to LSE. Here are some answers to your question: No! It's not even close, but something like it is. The OSHA standard you cite is for mercury in the air in the workplace. You ask about &quot;injections,&quot; which do not involve mercury in the air, so: this standard does not apply to injections. You ask about &quot;injecting your employees with thiomersal.&quot; With only a few exceptions (for those helping diabetics, etc, and emergencies), all states require that licensed health care professionals administer injections, and then, only under a prescription. (For example, thiomersal is mostly used in vaccines. All states require licensed health professionals to administer vaccines.) So: Unless you are a licensed health professional with a prescription, you cannot inject your employees with thiomersal. However, OSHA has interpreted its rules and regulations to allow employees to require vaccines in some circumstances, such as a pandemic. To the extent these vaccines contain thiomersal, employers can require employees to get injected with thiomersal by a licensed health professional.