House Bill 2190 would require blood tests be given to workers to determine whether the individual was intoxicated at the time of the workplace injury.

The bill states that workers who refuse to submit to blood tests are disqualified from workers comp benefits.

Any dependents of the workers would also forfeit their ability to collect comp benefits, the bill states.

Blood tests must be given within 12 hours of the occurrence of the injury and before seeing a physician or beginning any medical or substance treatment, since other medication could alter the blood test results. 

Source:

According to a summer Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans would not get a free, FDA-approved vaccine if it were available today.

This places companies in a predicament. How can they protect their employees if more than one-third are unwilling to take the vaccine?

The default rule in the American workplace—excluding employers in Montana and Puerto Rico—is to observe at-will employment, which generally means employees can be terminated for any reason if it’s not illegal or prohibited by employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements, says attorney Alissa Kranza.

“Employers need to stay informed of the particular laws in their state and look at their particular employee contract, agreement or handbook to determine what specific situations will allow for termination,” she says. “Ultimately, those contracts will dictate whether or not termination is allowed for refusing a vaccine.”

Since the virus travels across state lines, there’s also been talk of Congress mandating a vaccine under the commerce clause, but Kranza believes this is unrealistic. She says employee rights would be at risk and it could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a uniform practice for what HR can do. Every industry is different. So are their employees and jobs. She suggests that HR evaluate the makeup of its workforce and review current policies or processes for handling exemption requests. For those needing a religious exemption, it’s not the religion itself that matters, she explains, but the sincerity of the employee’s belief in those practices, even if they’re not widespread.

Employees may also refuse a vaccination under OSHA or ADA laws if it threatens to do more harm than good. Some may take biologics or drugs that weaken the immune system, for example, which increases their risk of catching the virus, becoming seriously ill or even dying.

In such scenarios, Kranza says, protected workers will require accommodations, such as working remotely, or being reassigned to other jobs where they can use a plexiglass screen, social distance, wash their hands or wear a mask.

Meanwhile, HR is better off making vaccines optional versus mandating them, which tends to sour or terminate employee relationships, she says, adding that HR can launch a pro-vaccine campaign. However, if someone has a bad reaction to the vaccine, that could result in a worker’s compensation claim.

“There are a lot of (people) who want to push this as though things are clear and employers can force everyone (to get vaccinated) and there won’t be any backlash,” Kranza said. “We’re a big country and will get different reactions.”

Source: HR Executive

This movement toward legalization poses distinct challenges for employers. While marijuana is classified as a controlled substance under federal law, it is difficult—and expensive—to rely on federal law as a defense to state law claims.

Members of the ąű¶ł´«Ă˝ have a resource they can tap into when attempting to make sense of this issue and other HR legal issues.

Attorney David James, a shareholder in the labor-and-employment group at Nilan Johnson Lewis, will join us at the Marketing & Distribution Convention in St. Louis next month to discuss the HR legal environment as it relates to marijuana. He also was part of a writing team that tackled the subject in a recent issue of Ag Innovator magazine.

In that article, James and Joe Schmitt wrote that employers increasingly are considering removing marijuana from their list of tested drugs for one of two primary reasons. They opt to stay in line with this societal shift, or they find it difficult to hire and retain employees when they choose to test.

The attorneys also reported that it is indeed legal to take disciplinary action against an employee who appears under the influence—any kind of influence—without the benefit of a positive test. The action is subject to greater second-guessing, which makes it more important to document evidence, such as slurred speech or alcohol on the breath.

Marijuana laws do not change the expectation that employees show up sober to work.

Find the complete article on marijuana laws at .

James and Schmitt write quarterly for Ag Innovator. Among topics they’ve tackled recently include:

• Avoiding liability while effectively managing employee performance;
• Responding to an emerging legal trend expanding employee reimbursements;
• Shifts in the Overtime Rule from the Department of Labor
• Protecting trade secrets;
• Drafting effective discipline to avoid wrongful termination claims;
• Tips to avoid a wage audit;
• Understanding religious accommodations in the workplace.

Beyond these four-times-a-year legal advice columns, the attorneys are available to members to ask company-specific legal questions. These 60-minute, no-cost, confidential consultations are about far more than litigation. If you need help drafting an employee handbook, this is a resource. And, of course, consulting the pros when you’re drafting a policy is a valuable first step in preventing those higher-stakes phone calls about litigation.

The service is not limited to one phone call. You are entitled to a new 60 minutes with every legal question. Members who have used this service tell us that a single phone call covered the cost of their annual Association dues.

You can reach Nilan Johnson Lewis at (612) 305-7500. Or, learn more about the firm at . The attorneys will verify your Association membership. Their conversations with member companies are confidential, as would be the case between any attorney and client.