Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

fescuerescue

(4,475 posts)

4. I think that's an easier barrier than it appears

Reply to Mosby (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:06 PM

Jun 2019

I'm usually on the "good luck proving it" wagon myself.

But in this case, if they perform a drug test which tests for THC AND they don't hire, that creates a very strong presumptive "well why did you pay to test for it, if it doesn't matter".

Now workmans comp....yea...definitely

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nevada bans employers from refusing to hire applicants who test positive for pot [View all] Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2019 OP

Excellent!!! Some progress out of the woods! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2019 #1

Did a stint of a few months as Wellstone ruled Jun 2019 #2

good luck proving it. Mosby Jun 2019 #3

I think that's an easier barrier than it appears fescuerescue Jun 2019 #4

Makes sense they had to exempt any employee that drives a vehicle madville Jun 2019 #5

I sure wish CA does the same. maveric Jun 2019 #6

You can be puking drunk on the streets Saturday night, but they'll still hire you Monday. hunter Jun 2019 #7

It's amazing, isn't it. Booze is pretty much edible poison, but yet pot is seen as some RKP5637 Jun 2019 #8