Tag Archives: Drug Testing

Opioids in the Workplace

Contributed by Michael Wong, November 3, 2017

One of the first questions I ask when providing drug and alcohol training to managers, supervisors and employees is “What is the most commonly used illegal drug?” Typically, the response that I get will be alcohol (albeit not illegal) or marijuana. What most do not realize until the training is that prescription drugs, in particular opioids, are the most commonly abused illegal drug. Prescription opioids include hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, codeine and fentanyl, while illegal opioids include heroin.

J0337282Opioid use in the United States has started to take on a whole new form and is now commonly referred to as the opioid epidemic. Illinois has not escaped the opioid epidemic; in 2016 there were 2,278 drug overdose deaths of which over 80% (1,826) were opioid related. The number of opioid related deaths in 2016 was an increase of over 30% of the opioid related deaths in 2015 and an increase of over 70% of the number of opioid related deaths in 2013.

In looking at these numbers, it is important to understand that these are only the deaths – not the actual number of individuals using or abusing opioids. In a recent study by the National Safety Counsel, over one in three Illinois residents (35%) reported being impacted by opioid/heroin use by knowing someone (self, family/friend, co-worker/co-workers’ family, or neighbor/neighbor’s family) that started using opioids/heroin, became addicted to opioid/heroin, survived an opioid/heroin overdose or had died from an opioid/heroin overdose. Indeed, one issue with the opioid epidemic is that the gateway to opioid use does not always come from illegal activities, but can start out with a legitimate legal prescription. When there is a valid use for a prescription drug, an individual can feel like they are not doing anything wrong and their use can quickly turn into a slippery slope of addiction, activities that negatively impacts their work performance and potentially illegal activities. As a result of this, the opioid epidemic does not discriminate and can be found across all demographics, industries and positions.

One of the concerns with opioids for employers is that it is more difficult to tell if someone is under the influence or using opioids or heroin than other more traditional drugs. For instance, opioids and heroin do not come with symptoms or indicators that are easy to perceive like with alcohol – a smell, shaking hands and movements, and behavior changes; or with marijuana – a smell, red eyes, delayed reaction time, anxiety, and lack of coordination. With opioids, it is often difficult for employers to make the connection between an employee appearing groggy, sleepy or forgetful in the workplace to being linked to drug use. Indeed, what employers will typically see, if anything at all, is a gradual decline in an employee’s attendance and performance, until the employee loses their job or stops coming to work altogether.

The traditional tool of employers to identify and prevent drug and alcohol use within the workplace is drug testing. Pre-hire drug testing can be effective in preventing illegal opioid users from joining the workforce. However, drug testing is not always effective where the opioid user has a legal prescription or where the individual is not yet an opioid user. Reasonable suspicion drug testing can also be effective, but first requires reasonable suspicion of opioid use which can be difficult to identify.

So what does this leave? First and foremost, employers should re-evaluate their drug policies and testing procedures and understand the potential legal implications. For example, drug testing can be modified to test for legal prescription medications, but in order to avoid a violation of the ADA the applicant or employee must be able to provide an explanation for the positive drug test, such as a prescribed medication. Additionally, employers must realize that even if the employee is using prescription medication, there may be an underlying medical condition that they need to be aware of to avoid any kind of disability discrimination claim.

Next, employers should consider questioning its health care benefit carrier and workers’ compensation carrier on what actions they are taking to address the opioid epidemic and collaborating with them on any specialized programs or options for addressing. This can include learning about whether the carrier has programs for the conservative use and risk of prescription opioids, an opioid management program and/or a prescription benefit management program, which can help in preventing prescription medication abuse and identify the abuse of prescription medications. In doing so, employers should also consider investing in an employee assistance program (EAP), which can help employees avoid or address addiction.

Another investment that can pay dividends is management and employee education. Better training and education for not only management, but also employees regarding the impacts of opioids, how to identify opioid use and how to address opioid abuse. Management training can help make management more aware of how to identify potential issues before they occur and get employees help before it escalates to more serious problems. This includes not only taking into consideration the symptoms of opioid and other drug use, but also recognizing changes in how employees are acting, their performance, their attendance, any recent injuries they have had and any other issues that could indicate drug abuse. Employee training can help employees understand the danger of opioids, how the use of legal use of prescription opioids can lead to addiction, and what steps can be taken to seek assistance. Of course, any training should be tailored to include information regarding the Company’s policies, drug testing, benefit programs and reassurances regarding the Company’s commitment to providing confidential and accessible help and treatment.

Finally, one thing to remember is that despite the high numbers of deaths in 2016 in Illinois, Illinois is still behind many states in its exposure to the opioid epidemic. Indeed, in some places manufacturing employers have found using pre-hiring drug testing was not effective. The reason for this is it significantly increased the number of applicants they have had to go through in order to hire for a position or was making it near impossible to fill their staffing needs due to applicants not returning after learning there was drug testing or applicants consistently failing the drug test.

 

Blanket Exclusion Policies Continue to Draw EEOC’s Ire

Contributed by Suzanne Newcomb, August 30, 2016

Last week the EEOC filed suit against an Arizona car dealership for rescinding its offer to an applicant who tested positive for a substance banned by the company’s drug policy. The drug screen itself was legal. The ADA specifically allows employers to screen applicants and employees for illegal drug use. It was the employer’s policy of excluding anyone who tested positive for certain substances without first inquiring whether the substance was legally prescribed to treat a disability that prompted the EEOC to file suit. Notably, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of this particular applicant as well as all others who are similarly situated.

Discrimination-2In a press release the EEOC’s Pheonix Regional Attorney explained that drug tests, though legal, “cannot be used to discriminate against qualified people with disabilities.” She cautioned employers to “be mindful that they may need to make exceptions to drug use policies as a reasonable accommodation.”

The EEOC has taken a similar stance against strict application of maximum leave policies. As is noted in the EEOC’s guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation published earlier this year, reasonable accommodation “can include making modifications to existing leave policies and providing leave when needed for a disability, even where an employer does not offer leave to other employees.” In some situations this can mean extending leave beyond that which is protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act. The EEOC’s May 2016 guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation can be found here.

The Arizona case involves prescription medication, not illegal drugs. The plain language of the ADA allows employers to act on the basis of current use of illegal drugs. Employers may also inquire about an individual’s ability to safely perform the essential functions of the position. However as prescription drug abuse continues to plague the American workforce, the line between prescription medication and illegal drugs becomes less and less clear.

Bottom line, the ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation will allow the individual to perform the job safely. This mandate extends to all phases and facets of the employment relationship. Blanket rules that do not provide for an individualized assessment of whether reasonable accommodation is possible are rarely defensible.

Are You Prepared for Medical Cannabis?

Contributed by Noah A. Frank

Medical marijuana (MMJ) is now permitted in 23 states and Washington D.C. Out of those 23 states four of them permit recreational use. Though it remains illegal on the Federal level, the U.S. Department of Justice recently announced the release of over 6,000 inmates convicted of nonviolent drug charges. This begs the question – are you prepared for medical cannabis in the workplace?

Nondiscrimination Policies

Most states with MMJ prohibit discrimination on the basis of a worker or applicant being a registered patient. However, employers should also carefully consider that a registered patient’s underlying medical condition is likely a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a result, employers that discriminate against (or refuse to provide reasonable accommodations for) a MMJ user could face unanticipated exposure under the ADA and other equal employment opportunity laws. Therefore, employers may regulate use and impairment in the workplace, but not discriminate against the underlying condition or status as a registered patient.

19261587_sSignificantly, employers will also have to carefully scrutinize their background check process to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, EEOC guidance, and “Ban the Box” laws to avoid any unintentional discrimination. This is especially true with the impending release of inmates with actual conviction histories. In general, a background check policy should be tailored to the position(s) being applied for, and employers should have a bona fide basis for disqualifying those with a criminal history (i.e., a nurse with access to controlled substances versus a groundskeeper). If there is no bona fide reason for excluding those with certain types of crimes, then do not do so.

Drug (In)Tolerance & Testing

Employers need to determine what they will and will not tolerate. Zero tolerance policies and discipline for impaired work (especially resulting in injury or damage) are permitted. Use by a non-registered user is not protected conduct (the same as using another’s codeine).

Take a close look at drug testing policies to ensure that they are based on reasonable suspicion: lack of agility, dexterity, and coordination could be the result of impairment from MMJ or other intoxicating substances, or could be the physical manifestation of the underlying protected disability. A good faith basis for considering discipline and providing the employee with the opportunity to explain will help mitigate risk of a discrimination claim.

How to Prepare for MMJ

Employers should take proactive steps today to ensure compliance with the various laws now to avoid bigger problems later. This includes:

  • Reviewing the company’s philosophy towards medical marijuana and other controlled substances in the workplace, and ensuring that managers and supervisors are training in the company’s policies.
  • Determining which positions are safety-sensitive, and updating job descriptions accordingly (side note: with impending updates to the DOL’s FLSA regulations, it is not a bad time to consider which positions are non/exempt).
  • Updating handbooks and manuals to reflect drug testing, workplace search, disability, and other related policies.
  • Engaging employment counsel to audit policies and practices to ensure compliance prior to there being an incident.