Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xjcsa

Well, California is one of the States which has passed very strict laws as to the ability of private employers to drug test employees. Therefore, it would seem to indicate that a private employer would end up responsible for damages for any ‘accident’ that occurred while the employee is under the influence. Or, he would be libel to a law suit if he tried to fire or remove an employee whom he thinks is under the influence. Kind of a catch 22!


19 posted on 11/01/2010 10:58:09 PM PDT by Ruth C (If you chose not to vote, you vote for the most liberal candidates in CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Ruth C
Did you read this ?

Section 11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

22 posted on 11/01/2010 11:08:58 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Ruth C

Proposition 19 is a Pandora’s box. I pray to God it does not pass.

Soros if funding it. Maybe all the nanny state accusers on FR should consider that.


24 posted on 11/01/2010 11:10:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson