Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

This one is just for JSA
Quote | Reply
https://nationalpost.com/...as-firing-overturned

Thought you would enjoy the read.

I can't imagine how they could conclude she should be re-hired after a breach of trust has taken place.
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. I'm sure they put a lot of thought into the decision, but it can be resolved with a simple question. If your loved one was in that facility and needed those painkillers to avoid crippling pain, would you want this woman to be the nurse?

I appreciate sympathy for this woman, but not at the expense of others. Let her find another line of work.
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Occupational hazard", "Disability"

SMH

If a gambling addict works in a bank and steals money, should they not be fired?
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This scares me. This could be decision with far ranging results in Canada.
According to the article, she is "in remission" from her disease, but doesn't remission implies that she isn't "cured". What happens when she relapses? Can I use relapse, or is it "when her disease returns"?
In the words of Al Jorgenson (and he would know) "Never trust a junkie."

"I keep hoping for you to use your superior intellect to be less insufferable. Sadly, you continue to disappoint." - gofigure
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.

If you were an opioid addict and showed up high, you could function with accommodation in the form of narcan.

Note: im not advocating this, just looking for ways to argue it out of boredom.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.


If you were an opioid addict and showed up high, you could function with accommodation in the form of narcan.

Note: im not advocating this, just looking for ways to argue it out of boredom.

It's legal for an employer to have a zero tolerance policy which prohibits certain levels of certain drugs. So, if the person tested positive, that person would not be performing the essential functions of the job, which require the person to be drug free.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.


If you were an opioid addict and showed up high, you could function with accommodation in the form of narcan.

Note: im not advocating this, just looking for ways to argue it out of boredom.

It's legal for an employer to have a zero tolerance policy which prohibits certain levels of certain drugs. So, if the person tested positive, that person would not be performing the essential functions of the job, which require the person to be drug free.

Lame! In related news, you're going to be busier since it sounds like Wisconsin is headed towards legalized medical marijuana.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.


If you were an opioid addict and showed up high, you could function with accommodation in the form of narcan.

Note: im not advocating this, just looking for ways to argue it out of boredom.


It's legal for an employer to have a zero tolerance policy which prohibits certain levels of certain drugs. So, if the person tested positive, that person would not be performing the essential functions of the job, which require the person to be drug free.


Lame! In related news, you're going to be busier since it sounds like Wisconsin is headed towards legalized medical marijuana.

Wisconsin needs to follow Michigan's lead and legalize all cannabis usage.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: This one is just for JSA [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
Absolutely unreal. What a messed up process.

In the US, to have a "qualifying disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you must be "able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation." So, for example, to be protected as an individual diagnosed as an addict, you have to be drug/alcohol free. So, if you show up to work drunk or high, and claim to be protected as an addict, you lose, because showing up to work under the influence does not make on able to perform the essential functions of the job.

In this case, her theft and doctoring of records would disqualify her.


If you were an opioid addict and showed up high, you could function with accommodation in the form of narcan.

Note: im not advocating this, just looking for ways to argue it out of boredom.


It's legal for an employer to have a zero tolerance policy which prohibits certain levels of certain drugs. So, if the person tested positive, that person would not be performing the essential functions of the job, which require the person to be drug free.


Lame! In related news, you're going to be busier since it sounds like Wisconsin is headed towards legalized medical marijuana.

Wisconsin needs to follow Michigan's lead and legalize all cannabis usage.

Sustained

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply