Employers question drug testing after Amend. 64

By: KKCO 11 News Email
By: KKCO 11 News Email

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KKCO) – The passage of Amendment 64 has left many employers wondering where they stand with drug testing their employees.

To help businesses understand the legalities, Mountain State Employers Council has developed a guideline for employers to help them develop policies about Amendment 64, something local Chamber of Commerce leaders say will be helpful for employers.

"We have a lot of employers who have a lot of questions about this because it's not as clear cut as it with being under the influence of alcohol,” said Diane Schwenke, executive director of the chamber. “We know that if we were to have a certain level in your bloodstream of alcohol, you're under the influence. We don't have that same matrix to use with marijuana."

Here are the MSEC’s four points to remember:

  1. An employer, whose supervisors are trained in reasonable suspicion of drug use and who require an employee to undergo a urinalysis, saliva or blood test after documenting signs and symptoms of drug use, will have a stronger chance of surviving a legal challenge if the employer terminates that employee. (This assumes that the worker tests positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], the active ingredient in marijuana).
  2. Colorado’s legal off-duty activities law (CLODA) prohibits employers from terminating employees for legal, off-duty conduct. Exceptions, however, are provided in law.
  3. If a worker is in a safety-sensitive occupation, employers may have a stronger legal basis to terminate employees who test positive for marijuana. A worker who is impaired through the use of marijuana in these occupations creates risk for the employer and other workers, which can fall under CLODA’s exceptions.
  4. CLODA refers only to employees, not to job applicants. Thus, pre-employment drug screening remains a lawful practice and may continue to be conducted by employers.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by wtfk on Jan 4, 2013 at 08:44 PM
    I love how conservatives are pretending to be "confused." Actually, the amendment itself says that it does not interfere with the employer's existing rights. This means if you fired someone for pot last year, you can do it this year. Believe me, I'd enjoy being able to force my employer to accept me as I am, but then it wouldn't be at will employment, would it? I can choose not to work for a disreputable company. They should be able to choose not to retain workers that they don't trust, for WHATEVER reason.
KKCO NBC 11 News
2531 Blichmann Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505

Station Phone: 970.243.1111
Business Fax: 970.243.1770
Newsroom Fax: 970.245.3793
News Tip & Contest Line: 970.255.8477
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 185684622 - nbc11news.com/a?a=185684622
Gray Television, Inc.