posted
So, my mom's place of business is starting a new random drug screening process. This is fine with her, she has no worries because she doesn't do any drugs or drink or anything.
What is concerning to me (and to her) is that the paper they're being asked to sign states that they agree not to sue her employer or the lab. It seems to me that they shouldn't be asking their employees to sign away their right to legal recourse like this.
So, what I want to know is: 1) Is this standard 2) Is this binding - even if she signs the paper can she still sue anyway 3) Can she cross this paragraph out before signing 4) Can she sign and just write in that she is signing under duress ("sign or your fired") and does not agree with the waiving of her rights to sue etc.
Right now she and several others have just refused to sign and said that they are fine submitting to the drug testing but they do not want to sign because of the paragraph saying they waive their right to sue.
So.. what do you think? I'm love to get some informed thoughts, but also would love just to hear how you would handle this.
Thanks!
EDITED: To indicate as a mayfly since I will be undable to read/reply after this afternoon and will likely delete then to keep anyone from wasting time replying to something I may not see...
I doubt it is totally standard, but it is probably somewhat common.
She can always sue, and I bet there's a decent chance the paper wouldn't result in it being thrown out (if she's suing over negligence of some kind, for instance). However, it wouldn't help.
She can definitely cross out the paragraph before signing. Her work might have some ability to respond to that, but there's nothing illegal about it at all.
She can write that she is only acknowledging receipt, and not agreeing. Again, how her work responds is largely up to them.
The best course might be to try crossing out the offending text, then signing, and seeing how work responds.
posted
What else does the paper say about not suing? Does it say anything about why? What could they possibly sue the employer or lab for when it comes to drug screening?
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're going to have to be way more specific to get any kind of meaningful advice. What kind of paper is this - is it just a waving of the right to sue, or is there more to it? Also, please take any advice given here with a grain of salt - it is NOT the equivalent of advice from a practicing attorney in your state.
1) Is this standard
Yes, in some fields.
2) Is this binding - even if she signs the paper can she still sue anyway
Sue for what? Negligence? Harassment? Discrimination? There are dozens of types of lawsuits. You can always sue, but if the contract is legal and binding, it'll be thrown out quickly.
3) Can she cross this paragraph out before signing
No. You can't just change a contract unilaterally - the employer would have to agree to the change and the paragraph would then be removed. Crossing out a paragraph is not the same as changing a contract - your mother would still be bound by the terms of the crossed out paragraph.
4) Can she sign and just write in that she is signing under duress ("sign or your fired") and does not agree with the waiving of her rights to sue etc.
No.
What would I do? I would first research if this is a standard practice in my field. Then I would speak to an attorney (this wouldn't cost me anything - I'm a former labor law paralegal and I can get free legal advice from my former employers). Then I would take my concerns to Human Resources.
I would also be very clear and somewhat discrete in how I presented my feelings. Employers get wary when employees are unduly concerned about suing them and about submitting to drug tests (they have no way of knowing that your mother doesn't use drugs and they could be liable if an employees does something wrong at the workplace while under the influence).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the paper myself yet.. but my understanding is that it's the employee signing that they agree to the new drug testing policy, and this statement is part of that agreement ("I agree to let you test me for drugs and I agree that no matter what happens as a result I can't sue you or the testing lab")
The idea seems to be that if they get fired because of the test they can't sue. The concern about this is that even though the policy lays out a series of steps to deal with a positive result, all the steps are "controlled" by the employer and doesn't include a third part arbiter or verification of the lab results. So if the lab messes up and gives a false positive (and my understanding is that this happens alarmingly often) the employer can pretty much just fire them. This would put someone out of a job with no legal recourse.
I can see the point about not being able to just modify a contract. I guess I didn't think of it that way - since the employer is trying to just introduce new requirements where non existed before. Whether this actually helps or not I don't know but the idea was that it documents that they do not agree to waive this right and then if the eventually sign it in its original form it demonstrates that they did so under duress..
Oh, they know very well my mom doesn't use drugs (she's an "all star" there) and she's made it clear to them that she's concerned about mistakes being made in the testing and the employees (herself and others) not having any recourse in such a case.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern over not being able to sue over drug testing would come from past law suits regarding drug tests. Before they changed the standards for opium, several people were fired over poppy seeds and these people sued over that. Which is why most labs changed their standards on that drug. Also, if the lab made a mistake such as switching urine, I would want to retain the right to sue. Now, if the paper is just saying that if the lab makes no mistakes and her employer fires her for doing drugs, she won't sue, I can see that being reasonable.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My concern over not being able to sue over drug testing would come from past law suits regarding drug tests. Before they changed the standards for opium, several people were fired over poppy seeds and these people sued over that. Which is why most labs changed their standards on that drug. Also, if the lab made a mistake such as switching urine, I would want to retain the right to sue. Now, if the paper is just saying that if the lab makes no mistakes and her employer fires her for doing drugs, she won't sue, I can see that being reasonable.
That's EXACTLY their concern... there appears to be no conditional, no "if the lab doesn't screw up". If this was there they wouldn't have a problem, I think.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Then I would speak to an attorney (this wouldn't cost me anything - I'm a former labor law paralegal and I can get free legal advice from my former employers). Then I would take my concerns to Human Resources.
Yeah, you did a much better job asking questions than I. I'm a personal injury paralegal currently, with an attorney for a fiance and one for a future father-in-law! Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs. M: you are incorrect about crossing out a paragraph. While it does give the employer a chance to choose to accept or reject it, and you must tell them about doing the crossing out, crossed out parts of contracts are generally removed from the contract.
posted
I work in the Nuclear industry, and we have initial drug tests and random drug tests all the time. I believe I signed away my right to sue over this. The company and the company's doctor have the sole right to fire, and there is no legal recourse. If there's a false positive, then basically they fire you and you can't work in the nuclear industry again.
I don't eat poppy seeds or hemp protein or anything that could give a false positive for any illegal drug. I just accept this as a condition of my employment. It does feel weird and invasive, at first, but it doesn't bother me now. I see a good reason for it, because we really want people to be sober while making engineering judgments and design decisions on nuclear plants, not to mention while operating them. I think it's a good thing.
When I was feeling weird and invaded and inspected, injected, detected, and all that on my first round through the mill, I just thought about The Right Stuff and how I'd always wanted to be an astronaut and how this wasn't anything near as bad as those astronauts had to go through. That and singing Alice's Restaurant a few times got me laughing and over the trauma of it. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
