Showing posts with label Employment Law Cases. Show all posts

Use Of Marijuana For Treatment - Legal or Not While at Work

While physicians have historically cautioned the public about marijuana’s detrimental effects, medical professionals now recognize that patients who suffer certain ailments can reap benefits from this drug. For example, patients undergoing cancer treatment often use marijuana to combat nausea, a common side effect of chemotherapy. The use of marijuana has successfully controlled seizures in patients with epilepsy. Alzheimer’s patients have also benefited from the use of medical marijuana because the drug stimulates weight gain, decreases outbursts of distressed behavior and slows the accumulation of certain proteins in the brain, which might contribute to the etiology of the disease. Chemicals extracted from marijuana can decrease chronic pain and alleviate symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, such as stiffness, muscle spasms and tremors.

The growing use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has sparked debate because “zero-tolerance” policies that prohibit workplace drug use are at odds with an employer’s duty to accommodate an employee’s medical condition that necessitates the use of marijuana to manage symptoms. The Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act of 2010, which recognized marijuana as a legitimate treatment option in New Jersey, has been criticized by attorneys for denying protection to employees who utilize the drug for medicinal reasons. 

http://www.unitedpatientsgroup.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bigstock-Cannabis-And-Medicine-66833371.jpg

Attorneys find fault with the law’s vague terminology that states: “nothing shall be construed to require…an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” Employers interpret the law to evade accommodating the use of medical marijuana whether at company facilities or off the premises. Attorneys hold that firing an employee for using medical marijuana constitutes disability discrimination and is a violation of the Law Against Discrimination in New Jersey, which states that employers must accommodate their employees’ medical conditions. They contend that employers do not have the power to decide which treatment option is permissible, nor should they differentiate between medications just because marijuana has a negative stigma.
 
New Jersey attorneys recently observed a rise in wrongful termination lawsuits filed by employees who used medical marijuana and were consequently subjected to drug tests and adverse action. Plaintiff Charlie Davis, who used medical marijuana in the treatment of neuropathy, filed a lawsuit against New Jersey Transit in Essex County Superior Court. Davis was forced to submit to a drug test and undergo subsequent rehabilitation to avoid dismissal. By failing to accommodate his serious medical condition, Davis’ attorneys contended that the New Jersey Transit committed disability discrimination in violation of the Law Against Discrimination in New Jersey. Davis held that the New Jersey Transit equated his reliance on medical marijuana with recreational drug abuse and dependency characteristic of an addict. In rebuttal, the New Jersey Transit claimed that the railroad division must comply with regulations imposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Commission and the Federal Transit Administration that categorically prohibit marijuana use and mandate periodic drug testing.

The conflict between an employer’s desire to maintain a drug-free environment and his obligation to accommodate the needs of employees who suffer medical ailments was illustrated by another lawsuit initially filed in Hudson County Superior Court but ultimately transferred to federal court at the end of July 2015. Plaintiff Barry Hogan filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer, On-Time Transport of Roselle, a company that provides ambulance services. Hogan, who suffers from a chronic illness, was prescribed the medication Marinol, which is used by cancer patients to relieve nausea resulting from chemotherapy. Hogan was allegedly fired from his position as driver after failing a drug test; he tested positive for marijuana because Marinol contains synthetic THC, which is the principal ingredient of marijuana.

In another wrongful termination lawsuit filed in Essex County, the plaintiff used medical marijuana to mitigate excruciating back pain resulting from an automobile accident. The defendant, employment agency Robert Half International, forced the plaintiff to submit to drug testing in September 2014 and allegedly fired him from his position after he tested positive for marijuana use.
Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Employment Law

O’Connor, Parsons, Lane & Noble has significant experience handling wrongful termination cases that entail violations of the Law Against Discrimination in New Jersey. If you or a loved one has been discriminated against due to a disability or medical condition, you may be able to present an employment law claim and receive compensatory damages.

Availing Legal Expertise to Get Respite from Firms Denying Overtime Compensation


Employment attorneys foresee an increase in overtime litigation cases, contingent upon passage of a law that would entitle more salaried Americans to receive overtime pay. The Obama administration advocates an expansion of the right to collect overtime and aims to grant overtime eligibility to a greater number of white-collar professionals. In June 2015, the Labor Department suggested increasing the stipulated minimum annual salary Americans must earn before they are deemed ineligible to collect overtime. If a law is passed to raise this “cut-off” salary from $23,660 to $50,440, approximately 5 million Americans now unable to receive overtime would qualify to receive payment.

The rise in overtime litigation will be further affected by a pending court case that could determine that after-hours use of smartphones for job-related matters is legitimate overtime work and must be duly compensated. Advances in telecommunications make it easy to engage an employee any time, and the boundary between work and home becomes blurred. Constantly inundated with work-related calls and emails when off-duty, a Chicago-based police sergeant ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against the city in 2010 for failure to pay overtime. The sergeant and an additional 50 co-workers claimed that they are entitled to receive overtime pay corresponding to time devoted to receiving and responding to messages on their smartphones when they were off-duty.  

Initially, the sergeant did not object to addressing work-related issues on his smartphone after-hours because he believed that the demands of the position required this extra effort, asserting that he viewed it as “part of the job.” He was motivated to maintain constant availability by the incentive of attaining a promotion. However, the sergeant became disenchanted with his employer, who allegedly overlooked him when it came time for promotions. After analyzing the sergeant’s phone records, his attorneys concluded that, in the span of 28 consecutive days, he spent a cumulative total of 12 hours for work-related calls, using his BlackBerry during free time. Instead of receiving a promotion, the sergeant was allegedly demoted from his position in the police department’s Bureau of Organized Crime to a lower-ranking district job, and he was thus denied an opportunity for growth and advancement within the organization. 

O’Connor, Parsons, Lane & Noble has significant experience handling employment law cases involving failure to pay overtime claims. According to New Jersey law, a very limited range of employees is barred from receiving overtime pay, such as executives, outside sales representatives, hotel employees, limousine drivers, farm workers and those who assist in the rearing of livestock. If your job differs from these specific categories, you are most likely eligible to receive overtime pay, and your employer cannot obligate you to perform your job duties without receiving the wages that you are rightfully owed. Unfortunately, employers occasionally try to evade labor and employment laws and rob employees of overtime. For example, an employer might change the title of your position and claim that you are consequently ineligible to receive overtime. If your position is labelled differently but you still fulfill the same job functions and perform essentially the same tasks that your previous job entailed beforehand, you still have a right to seek overtime. In a similar manner, employers may strategically assign you a position that belongs to a category exempt from overtime although the duties you actually perform correspond to a different category that deserves overtime. When calculating salaries, employers might also wrongfully deduct time allocated for preparation at the beginning of the workday and time spent cleaning up before you clock out and leave the premises. If you believe that your employer has violated the law by unjustly denying you overtime, O’Connor, Parsons, Lane & Noble can help you recover the unpaid wages that you deserve.

For more details refer to: http://lawnj.net/