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?
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.
The ADA does quite a bit more than "only require that an employer make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be employed." The reasonable accommodation part is not even the most integral part of the act. The ADA broadly prevents covered employers from discriminating against persons with disabilities. This includes directly asking an applicant what illnesses they have. The act also addresses housing and transportation discrimination. The employment thing is only one part of the law.
Also, I'm sorry that the state of California's monitoring program is so restrictive as to make it so "the employer must be told the nature of your disability," though I doubt that is indeed true. However, in some other states, monitoring programs do not impose those restrictions. Here in CT, there are no rules against night shift, overtime, or specialty at all. There is no narcotics restriction unless the program director decides that it is suitable for a given participant. Many people never have a keys restriction. I was a diverter and even I was allowed to work without a narcotics restriction. For those of us in my circumstances, why would an employer need to know I'm in recovery prior to the offer of employment?
I can only think of one reason they would want to know -- and it is to discriminate.
in my effort to find a job after all this junk settled down and like most of us, I went on what seemed like 100 interviews (probably not that many but it sure felt like it.) At one, it went very well, the manager interviewing me all but offered the job on the spot until i brought up the "elephant in the room" AKA the contract. I swear I could hear the bubble burst. As rotten as it was for me not to get that job, i do understand why they were unable to accommodate the restrictions. Not extending an offer is not always discrimination. In that particular case, the manager had a department to run and there was no way to work around me. Another interview was in the same vein. On that one I was told that she felt concerned about the ability to keep things confidential and keep me from getting targeted for trouble.
After getting one offer rescinded when I produced the contract, i learned to bring it up in the interview. If someone is going to reject me over merely the presence of a contract, disregarding the why and particulars, that's probably not a place I want to work anyhow. I have been very fortunate to find a place that is very accommodating to me.
As I said before, a job rejection is not absolute discrimination. Sometimes places just can't make a work around for the contract restrictions.
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.
You seem to be confusing reasonable protections under the ADA with monitoring program stipulations. I agree that it's not discrimination to not hire a nurse because they are in a monitoring program. Even without overt practice stipulations, there is a tacit agreement that monitoring of some form is required with the employee reviews most monitoring programs make employers send in.
I was just confused as to where you were getting the idea that the ADA doesn't cover addiction (it does) or the blanket statement that addicts are not eligible for reasonable accommodations under the ADA without 3-5 years of sobriety (also not true). If Alcoholic Alice, RN has one year of continuous sobriety and she needs to leave work twenty minutes early twice a week to attend an AA meeting -- this could be considered a reasonable request under the ADA depending on her working conditions. (Pretend she works in a call center.) Whether she is in a monitoring program or not doesn't matter. She doesn't need 3-5 years of sobriety to receive that accommodation which is a statement you made in a prior post.
The ADA does quite a bit more than "only require that an employer make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be employed." The reasonable accommodation part is not even the most integral part of the act. The ADA broadly prevents covered employers from discriminating against persons with disabilities. This includes directly asking an applicant what illnesses they have. The act also addresses housing and transportation discrimination. The employment thing is only one part of the law.
Also, I'm sorry that the state of California's monitoring program is so restrictive as to make it so "the employer must be told the nature of your disability," though I doubt that is indeed true. However, in some other states, monitoring programs do not impose those restrictions. Here in CT, there are no rules against night shift, overtime, or specialty at all. There is no narcotics restriction unless the program director decides that it is suitable for a given participant. Many people never have a keys restriction. I was a diverter and even I was allowed to work without a narcotics restriction. For those of us in my circumstances, why would an employer need to know I'm in recovery prior to the offer of employment?
I can only think of one reason they would want to know -- and it is to discriminate.
Having direct experience with HAVEN i know that this is not true. First off the employer at a minimum is expected to file quarterly reports, yes, but that is not the end of their responsibility. Someone at that workplace must be your practice monitor-monitor your behavior regularly for practice issues or behavioral problems or attendance problems. They are also required to call immediatly if there are any major concerns. They must be aware of this requirement and have a right and a need to know what in general they are watching for.
Second i don't know your situation but every HAVEN nurse i knew had practice restrictions- commonly no narcotics for at least 6 months, no home health, no critical care-while some employers may have no need to know you can't do a certain specialty it may be relevant if you would be expected to float from time to time. They need to know the restriction to accommodate it (the ADA requires reasonable accommodation- allowing you to float only to certain areas may well be determined a reasonable accommodation but they must know the restriction to be able to accommodate).
The problem with saying the ADA protects you from telling your employer about your disability is only true if your disability isn't relevant to the work at hand. For example it is legal for inpatient nursing jobs to require applicants to have a certain level of physical ability and "discriminate" against those who don't because the nature of the job requires it. Same way a blind person can't be a pilot.
It's very hard to say a recent history of addiction they was significant enough to land you in monitoring is irrelevant to nursing entirely due to concern for public safety and access to narcotics (actually it's relevant to many jobs) and the fact that addiction is defined as a relapsing disease. Thus, the ADA concern moves from not being allowed to ask to being required to provide reasonable accommodation- and the employer has to know the nature of the disability to know how to accommodate it. If you look at ADA case law both surrounding addiction in general and nurses with addiction the court has supported employers who have fired or not hired nurses because they felt that the stipulations of their monitoring programs could not be reasonably accomodated under the position (see Dovenmuehler out of MN federal court also cited by RiskManager- the court ruled that the hospital was allowed to not employ an RN in monitoring in the PICU because her contact included only supervised access to narcotics, the majority of the pt population on that unit would be unable to verbalize their needs and what their nurse did, most of the rooms were private, controlled substances were commonly used in that setting. The hospital met with the nurse and the few solutions they could come up with together included hiring another nurse to shadow her or similarly unpractical solutions-the court ruled that this would be unreasonable for the hospital and that because they HAD considered her specific disability and how to accommodate it in that specific job and none of the solutions were reasonable they didn't have to hire her.)
Also i know for a fact that HAVEN advises disclosing during the interview.
I do know one person who did wait until the offer and she was hired by both LTC jobs she applied to but i know many who did it both ways and struggled. I personally had plenty of interviews end abruptly when i disclosed but the one time i waited (accidentally- i thought i was going to have a 2nd interview) the job offer was withdrawn. All legal arguments aside i really believe that those who simply won't hire you don't care when you tell them. Those who might hire you tend to value honesty and would prefer you tell them earlier.
Not everyone in assistance program has substance abuse problems. There are other reasons for being in such programs. You're making an assumption about the participants in such programs accompanied by a lack of evidence. I mean this only to be helpful: do you require that I break down the original post in more basic terminology?
Your statements about child paraphelia and vision impairment are false equivalencies and are not germane to the topic at hand. As well, the ADA covers those receiving treatment for addiction and mental illness and despite whatever relation they may have to a job, you are still prevented from directly asking about these things.
License restrictions are not the topic of this thread. This thread pertains strictly to confidential assistance programs. The majority of the people in these programs have fully active, unencumbered licenses without any disciplinary action or history thereof. If you've been in the hiring business for as long as you say, then how come you don't seem to know the difference between these things?
Don't take this the wrong way but if I'm reading your profile correctly, you aren't even a nurse. You're just a risk manager -- a civilian. This thread primarily applies to nursing managers who themselves are licensed professionals and who are in a position of hiring other nurses. It also, if you care to read carefully, applies strictly to nurses in assistance programs who do not have practice restrictions. On that note, if you can answer what purpose is served by stating that you are a participant in such an assistance program during an interview, I'm willing to hear you out. Otherwise, your perspective doesn't seem to be adding anything to our conversation.
I also sense that you may be carrying around some baggage, based on some of your phrasing -- "we could talk about if we can work around it or not." Work around what?
RNdynamic the first two responses to RiskManagers quotes are contradictory- the first part of the sentence addresses substance abuse- you isolate that and state someone may have other issues- the rest of the sentence discusses other issues and you then say those are not germane? You were given three solid examples of fitting jobs to limitations which is part of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. I don't know how the OTHER post could have been more "broken down" or "basic. "
While people in monitoring programs do not have public permanent license restrictions, you are restricted by your contact while in the program-at the very least you must have a workplace monitor and unless HAVEN has changed your contact along with most other monitoring programs requires that your employer or at least your workplace monitor be informed of the existence of your contact and all the requirements of it prior to you starting work. So while you are correct in the technical sense RiskManager is correct in the practical sense. Your ability to practice at this time is conditional on your adhering to some conditions.
i don't know about the rest of the respondents, but it seems that rather than posting topics that encourage intelligent exchange of information and experiences, RNdynamic prefers inflammatory topics that bounce all over the place and include clearly erroneous information.
This is just my opinion so please don't flame me over it.
For me personally, I am not a fan of the 12-step thing (won't go into that here, don't have time to write a book) but it does say "be honest." Yes? Honesty with both the interviewer and yourself is the best thing. If a job cannot work around stipulations, that is just a fact of life. if they WILL not, there is nothing you can do to change that. Besides if a supervisor resides in that "dark ages" mentality, one: what else is there prejudice about? and two" do you really want to be there?
If a job cannot work around stipulations, that is just a fact of life. if they WILL not, there is nothing you can do to change that. Besides if a supervisor resides in that "dark ages" mentality, one: what else is there prejudice about? and two" do you really want to be there?
Agreed. The only thing i will say different is that i remember well being unemployed for months, interview after interview ending with no job...at that point I was desperate enough that i really wanted to find some way to convince even a supervisor who clearly hated addicts and did not believe they could recover to hire me. Even though i knew it would be a hostile environment i needed a job, any job.
Nowadays of course i completely agree that if someone is going to not hire you due to monitoring you will not change their mind no matter when or how you present it and you would not be successful under their supervision anyway. But i can empathise with those who are desperate for any job. Sadly, that doesn't change the reality which is that some people will work with you and some just will not. Better not to waste your energy or your self confidence on those with unenlightened prejudices.
The job i have now (which is my first since I got okay to go back) I literally put on my application I was in peer. I heard they were ever friendly and it was about a 20 minute drive so I figured no biggie if I didn't get called. They actually have 3 nurses working right now in peer and they have had good experience in the past with it so I figure it's where I'm supposed to be! I've been working for about 3 months and I enjoy it so far!
The job i have now (which is my first since I got okay to go back) I literally put on my application I was in peer. I heard they were ever friendly and it was about a 20 minute drive so I figured no biggie if I didn't get called. They actually have 3 nurses working right now in peer and they have had good experience in the past with it so I figure it's where I'm supposed to be! I've been working for about 3 months and I enjoy it so far!
Fabulous Regretful LPN. This is what I love to hear. Keep going and soon you will have finished your stips. Hey, I HAVE 6 WEEKS TO GO AND THEN WILL HOLD AN UNENCUMBERED LICENSE IN OREGON!!! I did it by putting one foot in front of the other. First I got a crummy job to pay bills, then another, and finally, a job in acute care.
Now, dear original poster: You need to stop fighting and struggling. The truth is this: the BON'S can do whatever they want, you need a job instead of to fight and argue (unless you want to pay a lawyer thousands upon thousands or are independently wealthy). Once you are on the BON's radar you will need to do what you need to do. Period. Doesn't matter much if you are in a BON stipulation program or some fancy alternative to discipline program....suck it up and do it. They have all the power and very little oversight. All state's BON's are different. Fair? Heck no. You can fight the BONs, the ADA, the state and federal government, et al when you are through this challenge. Know what? I am FRICKIN grateful for this entire process! I have grown emotionally, spiritually and physically.
Also, to answer your original question: In the interview for my present job I was 4 months into a two year probation. The interview went wonderful. The three interviewers asked me: "Finally, why should we hire you?" I looked each one in the eye and stated, ...because I am successssfully navigating the probation process and am thriving and determined to successfully get through one of the most difficult things a nurse can face in her or his career. I am a winner. I am ready to work for you." One in the room immediately pulled up my record on the BON website and they all looked at each other and said, "You are HIRED."
I have been at this hospital just short of 2 years now.
All you can do is try this. Obfuscation and/or being angry won't work. Truth is, fair or not, we will have a black mark against us for the rest of our lives. My primary struggle during this time has been to accept this fact. Thank you Risk Manager for telling it like it is. I remain a liability to your facility, but once I have worked there two years faithfully, I am valued like gold.
...also as a gift to myself I am taking a 6 month sabbatical in Hawaii with a trip to India later on in the year. I have survived the crucible, come out stronger and am grateful.
.thumb.jpg.18563f4c09eeaf9ed4235b3fc58e7db3.jpg){kind=small}
RNdynamic
528 Posts
The ADA does quite a bit more than "only require that an employer make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be employed." The reasonable accommodation part is not even the most integral part of the act. The ADA broadly prevents covered employers from discriminating against persons with disabilities. This includes directly asking an applicant what illnesses they have. The act also addresses housing and transportation discrimination. The employment thing is only one part of the law.
Also, I'm sorry that the state of California's monitoring program is so restrictive as to make it so "the employer must be told the nature of your disability," though I doubt that is indeed true. However, in some other states, monitoring programs do not impose those restrictions. Here in CT, there are no rules against night shift, overtime, or specialty at all. There is no narcotics restriction unless the program director decides that it is suitable for a given participant. Many people never have a keys restriction. I was a diverter and even I was allowed to work without a narcotics restriction. For those of us in my circumstances, why would an employer need to know I'm in recovery prior to the offer of employment?
I can only think of one reason they would want to know -- and it is to discriminate.