I recently received an offer for a position at a major hospital in Houston and had to go through all the pre-hire stuff, including a drug screen. I am currently prescribed a prescription that shows up on all the drug screens I've ever done. I always have had anxiety that this will cause me to lose a position in some way.
I'm panicking after what happened today.
-Last Wednesday (6/22) I went into the hospital's employee health clinic for my drug screen. I expressed my concern that I had prescriptions that will affect the results. I was reassured if I had it written down in my history everything would be fine.
-This morning (6/27) I missed a call from the hospital's HR department and then 2 hours later missed call from a 1-800 number. Since the 1-800 number left me a message instructing me to call, I gave them a call first. It was the MRO asking for verification of my prescription. They informed me I had 72 hours to submit proof. I submitted the proof immediately.
-In the next couple of hours I called my recruiter (assuming it had nothing to do with the drug screen) and asked if she had been trying to contact me this morning. She said yes that she was calling to inform me that I had positive drug screen (Note- before the MRO attempted to contacted me). I explained that the results were due to a prescription drug. She seemed confused: "What do you mean a prescription?" She seemed extremely judgemental, and disgusted with me. I didn't disclose the name of the prescription because as I was told by the hospital: My health information only goes to the employee health clinic. I expressed this situation panicked me. She replied "It panics us too." It was extremely hurtful. She obviously thought I was lying. She told me to contact her if I got that sorted out.
-I called the hospital's employee health clinic immediately after my call with my recruiter to inquire about the drug screen results. They were reluctant to help me, because apparently whoever normally deals with this "leaves at 3:30." I insisted; I told her HR had contacted me and that I was under the impression that this information would not be released to HR and was worried about losing my position. She then said "Oh we did just receive verification. I'll update your profile to show a true negative and let HR know. Someone from HR will be in touch with you."
-I waited 15 minutes then tried to call my recruiter back twice with no answer. I sent her an email to confirm she received the information and to confirm my start date. No answer yet. I'm afraid she has contacted my unit and nurse manager about the situation.
I did not think that HR was suppose to be aware of a positive result of a drug test until it was verified? Especially since this hospital has its own employee health clinic, and HR does not deal directly with drug screens. Agh. Could they take away my position? (I was going to have my offer rescinded before the MRO even had contacted me!) How is this normally supposed to work? Can anyone shed light on this situation? I am really upset that this happened, and hope it gets sorted out.
[Not happy at the idea of my boss hearing I had a positive drug screen, then hearing "Oh never mind, she is taking the drugs legally."]
Note again:This is a MAJOR hospital system that excels in employee satisfaction, one that I would not pin having this kind of confusion with.
As somebody else wrote - nursing is a safety sensitive job. And some medications can be excluded. I understand that there is bias and prejudice - but to be honest, if I was hiring, I would rather take the person with the negative drug screen. It is not a guarantee and many people function fine on medication but it is concerning for many reasons.
Probably 3/4s of the people you work with are on medication of some sort...
I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).
Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?
Can you imagine if a Catholic hospital had a policy that they would not hire anyone who used prescription birth control pills?
There is no single list of "safety-sensitive medications. The drugs of concern to one employer in a given setting may not be an issue for another employer in a different setting. Those that I know to have been reviewed by various employers have included medications with a high likelihood to impair one's level of alertness, reaction time, judgment, etc. Some significant factors that posters may not be considering include whether the individual works alone or with others, whether s/he operates potentially hazardous equipment or drives in the course of employment, whether the employee is solely responsible for the well-being of minor children or dependent adults at work, the strenuousness of physical activity and cognitive demands of the job, and whether the job requires irregular hours or on-call time that could make it impossible to time medications so that they don't interfere with working hours.
I was recently involved in a situation where a candidate's drug screen indicated use of a prescribed controlled substance. Because of the sensitive nature of the individual's work (which I won't disclose here), the employee was notified that a discussion with his/her healthcare provider was necessary in order to determine fitness for the job. It was the candidate's physician who indicated that the side effects of the medication rendered the candidate capable of the work required and advised not to hire for THAT position, although there were other that were suitable.
This type of consultation is allowable and appropriate under the ADA, and protects all parties involved: the candidate, the employer and the individuals served by the employee.
As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.
Probably 3/4s of the people you work with are on medication of some sort...
Yeah - that might be true - but I really do not want to know what medications my coworkers are taking because it might affect the way I think about that person after. As I admitted - I am not free of bias - even though I would like to be. Fact is, I am not. Which is also the reason why I do not want to know what a prisoner, who is a patient, had done...
Yeah - that might be true - but I really do not want to know what medications my coworkers are taking because it might affect the way I think about that person after. As I admitted - I am not free of bias - even though I would like to be. Fact is, I am not. Which is also the reason why I do not want to know what a prisoner, who is a patient, had done...
Do you have an existential crisis every time you take a Tylenol?
As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.
That comment was actually related to the responses that pointed out marijuana being a potential substance that would lead to an offer being rescinded (in the case of it being state-legal for medicinal use, but still not federally legal). And the comment re: nicotine also being a (legal, but not prescribed) substance which some hospitals will refuse to employ those who use it.
Unlike those two substances, birth control is legal on both state and federal levels AND is a prescribed medication. I can just imagine the outrage if an employer refused to hire those who used it under a physicians care. And yet, I can imagine it happening, considering news stories like hobby lobby and the cake shop who said their religious views precluded them from making a cake for a gay wedding.
What if THAT substance was a barrier to employment, like other substances apparently can be for certain jobs?
It was not intended so much hyperbole as it was hypothetical.
All of the back and forth in this thread is why the company would just hire someone else. Not worth the drama. And no it isn't personal.
Well, part of the reason for verifying before denying is to give the "accused" a chance to question the results. How many times have you done a "drug test" that was, in fact, a 5/$10 off Amazon test? I've done a few. They aren't "precision" or even particularly accurate. Even labs screw up.
That does not address pre-employment screens. No place I've ever worked has told me they would not hire me if I tested positive for legally prescribed medications, and it seems absurd to me that if it were their practice, that potential hires wouldn't be clearly notified in advance. It's an interesting discussion, to be sure, but I don't think there's any chance it applies to OP.
For safety sensitive jobs, screening for prescription medications that can be deemed potentially impairing can occur after the conditional offer of employment is made, which is when most "pre-hire" testing is done, since it's technically after the employee has been hired (but before they have any actual shifts).
I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).
Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?
There is no defined list. The legal precedent in the past had been that employers could prohibit use (even legally prescribed use) of any medication that included a warning of potential impairment (ie "do not drive or use heavy machinery") in the FDA labeling, however more recent legal cases such as Dura vs the EEOC held that employers could prohibit any medication they could reasonably argue could be impairing in a safety sensitive position.
The legal basis that prevents all jobs (non-safety sensitive) from being subject to testing for prescribed medications is the ADA, which is enforced by the EEOC, here's their explanation of the exception for safety sensitive jobs:
Some legal info sites that address the subject:
8. May an employer askall employees what prescription medications they are taking?
Generally, no. Asking all employees about their use of prescription medications is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.(51) In limited circumstances, however, certain employers may be able to demonstrate that it is job-related and consistent with business necessity to require employees in positions affecting public safety to report when they are taking medication that may affect their ability to perform essential functions.Under these limited circumstances, an employer must be able to demonstrate that an employee's inability or impaired ability to perform essential functions will result in a direct threat. For example, a police department could require armed officers to report when they are taking medications that may affect their ability to use a firearm or to perform other essential functions of their job. Similarly, an airline could require its pilots to report when they are taking any medications that may impair their ability to fly. A fire department, however, could not require fire department employees who perform only administrative duties to report their use of medications because it is unlikely that it could show that these employees would pose a direct threat as a result of their inability or impaired ability to perform their essential job functions.
From legal info sites:
Employers with employees working in safety-sensitive positions have an obligation to ensure that their employees are not impaired while engaged in their jobs. For example, earlier this week I discussed Blazek v. City of Lakewood, in which the 6th Circuit concluded that the ADA does not protect a drunk snowplow driver. We also know that the ADA does not protect employees under the influence of illegal drugs.
What about legally prescribed drugs? As an employer, can you test employees for prescription medications packaged with warnings about operating heavy equipment. And, if an employee tests positive, can you require those employees to disclose those medications to the third-party company hired to administer the tests. Surprisingly, the ADA is silent on these issues.
The EEOC has issued guidance explaining the exceptions to the medical inquiries limitations. The guidance states that in general, employers may not ask all employees about the prescription drugs they take. Asking all employees about their use of prescription drugs is rarely job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, only a handful of occupations will be able to demonstrate that prescription-related inquiries would be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The example the EEOC provides is police officers. In occupations of this type, because of the significant safety risk involved with the use of certain prescription medications, employers may be able to demonstrate that asking employees about their prescription drug use is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Conversely, administrative positions such as accountants, information technology professionals, administrative assistants, human resource professionals and most management positions would not face significant job-related safety risks associated with side effects caused by prescription medications. - See more at: Bad Request
There is no defined list. The legal precedent in the past had been that employers could prohibit use (even legally prescribed use) of any medication that included a warning of potential impairment (ie "do not drive or use heavy machinery") in the FDA labeling, however more recent legal cases such as Dura vs the EEOC held that employers could prohibit any medication they could reasonably argue could be impairing in a safety sensitive position.
What's your source? This is directly from the EEOC website regarding Dura v. EEOC:
"According to the EEOC's suit (Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00059), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. tested all of its Lawrenceburg, Tenn., plant employees in May 2007 for 12 substances, including certain legally prescribed drugs, in violation of the ADA. Five of the drugs tested for were illegal controlled substances, the EEOC said, but the other seven were legal medications that were lawfully prescribed for the individuals taking them.Further, the EEOC alleged that Dura required those employees who tested positive for legally prescribed medications to disclose the medical conditions for which they were taking prescription medications, and made it a condition of employment that the employees cease taking their prescription medications, without any evidence that the medications were affecting the employees' job performances. According to the EEOC, Dura then suspended employees until they stopped taking their prescription medications, and fired those who were unable to perform their job duties without the benefit of their prescription medications. Moreover, Dura conducted the drug tests in such a manner as to disclose to its entire work force the identities of those who tested positive.
All this alleged conduct violates various provisions of the ADA, the EEOC charged. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process."
What's your source? This is directly from the EEOC website regarding Dura v. EEOC:
"According to the EEOC's suit (Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00059), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. tested all of its Lawrenceburg, Tenn., plant employees in May 2007 for 12 substances, including certain legally prescribed drugs, in violation of the ADA. Five of the drugs tested for were illegal controlled substances, the EEOC said, but the other seven were legal medications that were lawfully prescribed for the individuals taking them.Further, the EEOC alleged that Dura required those employees who tested positive for legally prescribed medications to disclose the medical conditions for which they were taking prescription medications, and made it a condition of employment that the employees cease taking their prescription medications, without any evidence that the medications were affecting the employees' job performances. According to the EEOC, Dura then suspended employees until they stopped taking their prescription medications, and fired those who were unable to perform their job duties without the benefit of their prescription medications. Moreover, Dura conducted the drug tests in such a manner as to disclose to its entire work force the identities of those who tested positive.
All this alleged conduct violates various provisions of the ADA, the EEOC charged. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process."
Dura lost $750,000 over that event.
The Dura Automotive case dealt with workers that were not in safety-sensitive jobs, Dura wasn't arguing that these workers had an exemption from being tested due to working in safety sensitive jobs, but that the workers were not disabled and therefore the ADA did not apply.
From the EEOC's site addressing safety sensitive jobs:
8. May an employer ask all employees what prescription medications they are taking?
Generally, no. Asking all employees about their use of prescription medications is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.(51)In limited circumstances, however, certain employers may be able to demonstrate that it is job-related and consistent with business necessity to require employees in positions affecting public safety to report when they are taking medication that may affect their ability to perform essential functions. Under these limited circumstances, an employer must be able to demonstrate that an employee's inability or impaired ability to perform essential functions will result in a direct threat. For example, a police department could require armed officers to report when they are taking medications that may affect their ability to use a firearm or to perform other essential functions of their job. Similarly, an airline could require its pilots to report when they are taking any medications that may impair their ability to fly. A fire department, however, could not require fire department employees who perform only administrative duties to report their use of medications because it is unlikely that it could show that these employees would pose a direct threat as a result of their inability or impaired ability to perform their essential job functions.
dirtyhippiegirl, BSN, RN
1,571 Posts
Probably 3/4s of the people you work with are on medication of some sort...