The topic is pretty straightforward. I've always been advised that when job searching, a good time to disclose that you are in a monitoring program is at the close of an interview when you think you have caught the interest of the prospective employer.
However, this seems like self-sabotage to me. If you think you've caught the interest of the employer, why finish the interview off on a note that raises the suspicion of past substance use or mental illness? I feel as though this is not a good impression to leave.
It seems to me, and people may disagree with this, that a better time to mention that you are in a monitoring program is when you have received an offer. Where I live, monitoring programs do not impose restrictions on shifts or overtime, so I feel that, as long as you do not have a narcotics restriction, then the fact that you participate in a confidential monitoring program should not really have any bearing on an employer's decision to hire you. So why tell them before you receive an offer?
As well, I feel that an employer would be very unlikely to rescind a formal offer once they have given it, by mere virtue of you informing them that you're with such a program, out of concern of violating discrimination laws against persons with disabilities, which indeed apply to persons who receive treatment for addiction or mental illness.
What are your thoughts on this? What have you done in the past and what were your experiences?
Actually when an employer hires a nurse in Diversion they agree to be a work place monitor and they have responsibilities to the BRN so they do need to know if you are in Diversion. Plus you need to read the ADA because while it covers mental illness it does not cover addicts as a protected class.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
Addiction is considered a mental illness Hppy.
It may be a mental Illness but is specifically excluded from the ADA
The following language is straight from the language of the ADA.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act[3] specifically permits employers to ensure that the workplace is free from the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol, and to comply with other federal laws and regulations regarding drug and alcohol use. At the same time, the ADA provides limited protection from discrimination for recovering drug abusers and for alcoholics.[4]
The following is an overview of the current legal obligations for employers and employees:
An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an individual with a disability†when the employer acts on the basis of such use.
An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated.
An employer may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace.
It is not a violation of the ADA for an employer to give tests for the illegal use of drugs.
An employer may discharge or deny employment to persons who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs.
Employees who use drugs or alcohol may be required to meet the same standards of performance and conduct that are set for other employees.
Employees may be required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and rules set by federal agencies pertaining to drug and alcohol use in the workplace.[5]
An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an individual with a disability†when the employer acts on the basis of such use.
An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated.
That's exactly the population in a monitoring program: people with a history of addiction who are not currently engaging in the use of drugs. It is not specifically excluded from the ADA, as you mention, but actually explicitly included if we take the language you are quoting to be true.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
A person in a monitoring program is not considered rehabilitated until such time as they have 3 to 5 years continuous sobriety - since other posts of yours mention what drugs one might use to get high but not show up on a drug test ( IE Whip-it's) I would hardly consider you rehabilitated - best to concentrate on your own sobriety until such time as you have no desire to use.
I myself have over 14 years of sobriety and have never hidden my history in any workplace setting - I have never been discriminated against by any employer and I chock that up to being 100% honest in all my affairs. I currently work for an employer who hires nurses in diversion and assists them in getting their lives and careers on track.
It's not clear if you are in a monitoring program or not. But almost all BON monitoring programs require employers to act as workplace monitors and file monthly paperwork with the monitoring agency. So in essence it is necessary for a person in monitoring to reveal their affliction.
A person in a monitoring program is not considered rehabilitated until such time as they have 3 to 5 years continuous sobriety - since other posts of yours mention what drugs one might use to get high but not show up on a drug test ( IE Whip-it's) I would hardly consider you rehabilitated - best to concentrate on your own sobriety until such time as you have no desire to use.
You were talking about the ADA' definition of a disability. You were suggesting that addiction is excluded from protection by the ADA. Now you're switching gears and talking about a monitoring program's definition of someone who is rehabilitated. I am quite sure that the ADA is not concerned with monitoring programs or how far along someone in them is, when it comes to protecting persons with disabilities.. You say that you're sober, but are you sure that your thinking is sober too?
It's not clear if you are in a monitoring program or not. But almost all BON monitoring programs require employers to act as workplace monitors and file monthly paperwork with the monitoring agency. So in essence it is necessary for a person in monitoring to reveal their affliction.
Hppy
This is wrong on all counts. First of all, my monitoring program only requires that a one-page progress report be sent quarterly, which is 4 times a year. This is the state of CT. Secondly, it is absolutely notnecessary for a person in monitoring to reveal what illnesses they have or even the fact that they are in recovery. In some monitoring programs, participants may not have any addiction issues whatsoever. Some people are in the program purely due to mental illness that somehow impairs their ability to practice. Some are even in it for a physical disability. All that you are required to tell your employer is that you are in the program, and that's all. You don't have to give a reason for why you are in it, nor are you encouraged to. And you are not encouraged to tell them before you get a job offer.
Some reading on the subject from the Feds and other sources.
Thanks! Those were interesting links. I actually read through most of them. Agree with what you and, to an extent hppy, have said on the subject as it pertains to the original question.
I didn't see any specific rulings or wording stating that you aren't considered rehabilitated until you have been sober/clean for 3-5 years, which is nice. It seems as if the wording has been left deliberately vague for a reason more for the benefit of the (ex)-employer.
It seems inherently discriminatory that drug addicts are treated differently than alcoholics. I understand WHY this is but it still doesn't seem fair.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
Where are you getting this from? It's not in the statute. Seems like a lot of misinformation flying around this thread from both sides..
In California you are not considered safe to practice without monitoring until you have 4 years of continuous sobriety. I realize every state is different but by AA's own definition we are never cured or recovered - we are in recovery with a daily reprieve from our disease by the grace of our higher power.
Again I realize that every state's program is different but in California nurses enter diversion voluntarily and agree to follow all rules and practices set forth by the monitoring agency. This includes in California at least telling you employer that you are in recovery.
To further clarify - The ADA only requires that an employer make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be employed. In order for such accommodations to be made the prospective employer must be told the nature of the disability. In my case the contract I signed excluded me from working nights or overtime. It also excluded me from carrying Narcotic keys for my first year of employment. These were all accommodations my employer had to make in order for me to work there.
I am fortunate that I found an employer who was willing to make a leap of faith and give me a shot. The DON called me her Grand Experiment. She has since hired 17 nurses in Diversion - some have succeeded a few have not, but that's the nature of addiction.
RNdynamic
528 Posts
Addiction is considered a mental illness Hppy.