Drug testing court case review | Part 2👨🏻‍⚖️

EKD vs QDA, 2020

We covered the facts in last weeks post.
This week we’ll cover the key takeaways from this case and how they apply to your company!

  1. EKD claimed he had reported the accident. The company didn’t investigate this enough, and went ahead with the decision to dismiss anyway.
  2. The wording in the drug & alcohol testing policy was: If required, an employee must immediately submit themselves for a post-incident drug and alcohol test following accident. The judge’s comments were, “Presumably not every incident requires such testing.”

Having the words if required just made things complicated. If those words weren’t in there, it would have been clear that a post-incident drug test was required, and this would have been more of a justification for dismissal.

This goes back to our advice about making policies specific and focused: be very clear exactly what you want (specific), and only write that in the policy (focused).

In this case, you want a post-incident drug test after every accident. Be focused and write exactly that in your policy!

Don’t hedge – don’t include if requireds or in certain conditions’ or at the company’s discretion or when instructed or in some cases… be 100% clear about what will happen, and state it unambiguously.

Extract from our weekly training email series. These cover a range of topics such as industry updates, tips and tricks for drug and alcohol testing, court case reviews and more! To join, follow this link: https://landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/n3w0r9