Refusal of Employee Drug Test?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bri2u2002

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
447
I've had a herniated disk that I've been prescribed vicodin. I had some incidents at work in which they had sent me home because I was 'impaired'.

I work at a Library. The occasions happened about 6 months ago and no problems since then or drug test.

August 2 I came to work not feeling well. The Director decided to take me to the hospital. She had mentioned a drug and alcohol test. I was sick and at the hospital they treated my symptoms of fever and so forth.

They asked if I wanted iv hydration or a blood test. Never was a drug test mentioned. I was suspended today because my refusal of blood test constituted a refusal of a drug test.

I did not connect a 'blood test' with a 'drug test'. In the incident report I received from the hospital there is no mention of being requested to take a drug test. Only that I didn't want IV hydration or blood test. Never in the incident report is a refusal of 'Drug and Alcohol' testing refusal.

Only that I didn't think I needed a blood test. They are implicating that my refusal of blood test constituted a refusal of 'drug and alcohol' test which counts as a positive result.

I will take a drug test no problem but I'm already suspended.

Any advice?

Thanks!
 
Talk to upper management, and explain the scenario. if that doesn't work, consult a lawyer.
 
Well. Upper management is who took me to the hospital. I'm not fired but feel that the suspension is unjust considering that a 'drug and alcohol' screening was never mentioned or asked for by the physicians. Just if I 'wanted' a blood test. I don't associate 'blood test' with 'drug test' and it is not documented that a blood test constituted a 'drug test' in the incident report. I'm working with my union rep.

I have to meet with Employee Assistance Program on Monday. I gave HR the incident report and they even agree that a 'blood test' is vague. No drug or alcohol screening is mentioned as being requested. It was requested by my boss to the hospital but they treated my flue-like symptoms and 'drug' screening was never mentioned during the exam by the doctors. So it didn't take place.

Also if I was 'impaired' would the ER release me as they did no questions asked?
 
Were you actually intoxicated at the time? What about on the previous incidents where you were sent home? Even if they don't have a drug test result, I would assume that eyewitness accounts of you being too impaired to work could justify a suspension/firing.
 
Definitely explain your self. Also it seems as if maybe someone in management had it in for you or maybe it was a miscommunication between the hospital staff and your boss. She wanted you drug tested and upon learning no drug test was administered your the one who catches shit. I think you have a good leg to stand on in all this.
 
Upper management is what sent me to the hospital. They had told the hospital to do a 'D&A' test but the hospital never requested one.

They treated my flu like symptoms and asked if I'd like blood work or iv hydration. I said 'no' I'm just not feeling well and want to go home.

They constitute that since I didn't agree to a blood test. First I was asked if I 'wanted' one not whether I agree to take one and I didn't associate 'blood test' with 'drug test'. I associated it with the sickness I was having.

Now I'm suspended. Any advice?
 
Were you actually intoxicated at the time?
No. But mangement's report makes it seems like I was fucked up. It isn't true.

Just sick as hell. My brother had somnella.

I had been sent home b4 but I had prescriptions for what I was taking and the dr. approved my return to work after I had a herniated disc but had a prescription for the Vicodin I was taking. That was 6 months ago and I'm off opiates.

I'm prescribed Xanax and Klonopin by a psychiatrist. That's all I take- and Paxil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who the fuck are they to dictate what tests are performed on a hospitalized patient? Only a DOCTOR (or LE in the case of a DUI) can order tests. If some management twat tried to dictate to me what tests are to be run I would have security escort them out. Sorry for the foul language, but this things infuriate me.

Additionally, before any treatment or diagnostics are performed, written consent is required from the patient.

You need a copy of your medical records and a report from the treating physician.

My big question is why did an employer take you to the hospital? Did they think that you were impaired? Drug tests performed in a drug-free workplace are typicaly urine tests. I've never heard of an employer asking for blood for a tox screen, and I work in a drug-free workplace. The cost of bloodork is usually prohibitive.
 
Upper management is what sent me to the hospital.

Why? I still don't understand their role in taking you to the hospital--it's not typical. Whydidn't you decline given that you declined all treatment and diagnostics once there?

Also, an ER has no real choice in keeping a patient who's denied treatment AMA except under extreme conditions.
 
Employee assistance = Company run scheme. So in essence in this case useless.

Speak to your own lawyer, and/or if you have one your union rep/shop steward. Anything else is a waste of time.
 
Employee assistance = Company run scheme. So in essence in this case useless.

Speak to your own lawyer, and/or if you have one your union rep/shop steward. Anything else is a waste of time.

Yes, I don't think an EAP will help you, and I'm not convinced that what is shared with an EAP is confidential.
 
Well I have the incident report from the hospital and I filed it with HR.
The employer asked for one and it is in the report. I did not know this until I saw the incident report from the hospital.

The treating physician asked me what drugs I had taken. I told them Xanax and Vicodin which I'm legally prescribed. That was the end of any drug conversation. They didn't ask me to pee in a cup.

They asked if I wanted blood test or IV hydration and I declined. My employer is stating that my refusal to take a blood test constitutes a refusal to take a 'drug test' which counts as a positive.

I don't want to hire a lawyer and draw this out. I just want my job secure. I'm not sure why the Director took me to the hospital. I told her I was sick and since I was at work that is why?

I'll show EAP my prescriptions. Take a drug test I guess. My steward seems like a pussy.
 
I don't want to hire a lawyer and draw this out. I just want my job secure. I'm not sure why the Director took me to the hospital. I told her I was sick and since I was at work that is why?

I'll show EAP my prescriptions. Take a drug test I guess. My steward seems like a pussy.

Looks like either you hire a lawyer and draw it out, or you loose your job. Consult an attorney and at least see what he says, its free! You also may be surprised that the lawyer may cost less than what you expect!
 
Shit. Sounds like a lot of effort. If you don't make a butt-load of money, I'd seek employment elsewhere. But considering you have a union, you probably do. I got off drugs long enough to pass their test. They thought I was an enjoyable and a fun person (right up until they said, do you want to be fired so you can collect unemployment or would you rather resign? (post office) Good luck dude, let us know how it all turns out. I took valium the whole time I worked there, God I thought I had to ... gives a whole new meaning to going postal.
 
Something does not sound right here. I've never had a doctor ask me if I "wanted" a test. Either they needed to do a diagnostic test and they ordered it or else they did not feel it was justified and they did not order it. But they never asked if I wanted a test. Did the doctor explain to you why he was asking if you wanted a blood test?
 
I agree with afterglow, the doctor was vague. Consult a free lawyer now and see your options, unless you think you can find another job of similar pay (assuming you have no record, good credit, and good job history (except this most recent incident)
 
If you don't make a butt-load of money, I'd seek employment elsewhere. But considering you have a union, you probably do.
Are low-paid workers not unionised in the USA? I know the number of workers in a union is low, but it is very strange if only the high paid are in one. You would think it would be the opposite.

I would definitely see your union rep, if the USA is anything like the rest of the world they will have their own lawyers and it won't cost you a penny to bring a case.
 
The question I asked which the OP is not answering is:

"Were you visibly intoxicated at work?"

If the answer is yes, they have every right to fire you, drug test or not. Even if you are legally prescribed vicodin, xanax, and klonopin.
 
I'm an alcoholic and my sponsor is a Lawyer. According to the EAP ladies report they thought I was drunk (I've been sober over a year) and that the ER is not where drug/alcohol screening is done in the first place.

The EAP lady agrees there is so many inconsistencies that she is willing to advocate on my behalf. I have to write a letter to the head of ER for them to explain to HR the idea that refusing 'blood work' constitutes a refusal of a test. Also alcohol or incoherence is not mentioned in the hospital incident report.

Obviously if I was drunk and incoherent it would show up on the ER report. No alcohol was ever mentioned ever. Only today in the EAP report was I informed they thought I was drunk. Everyone at work knows I don't drink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top