I’m in the terribly exciting process of searching out gainful employment in a horrifically bad job market. So here I am, with my fresh-new BA degree, applying for supermarket jobs
As I’m filling out one application, there’s a series of “initial here” bits, one of which reads, in part:
Now, the sentence before, regarding pre-employment drug screens I can understand. I have rather strong feelings about the uselessness and invasive nature of such tests, but we’ll not get into that here. What I want to know is, what the hell do they want access to my medical records for, and what could they possibly, legally, be looking for? Could they use any medical history against me? I thought there were laws in place to guard against discrimination for such things? I mean, I’m applying to work at a bloody grocery store, here, not the effing CIA. What gives?
They are probably looking for a history of back trouble.
IF you had a bad back, and they hired you any re-injury could/would* be covered under workman’s comp.
WC is a major expense for any employer.
*I don’t know the law for the state of confusion. Laws vary from state to state.
You may consent to have a drug screening done, but you must also consent for the results of that screening to be released to the Company, even if some of the results relate to other conditions, illnesses or medications you may be taking.
So, if the screening reveals a powerful anti-psychotic drug in your system, your potential employer just might want to know a little more about you.
Rick, aren’t there anti-descrimination laws to protect against being turned down for employment due to physical disability, etc? Cillasi, it’s my understanding that, for the most part, after a couple of days the drug test is primarily sensitive to marijuana metabolites which may show up for a week or two after heavy use. Nearly all other drugs commonly tested for are gone from the system within four or five days. Prescription medications are not tested for, to my knowledge.
Also, Reeder, I’m not referring to pre-employment, required physical exams, but the company’s ability to go poking through my medical history now, or at any time during my (hypothetical) employment.*
~Mixie
*For the record, I do not have anything in my medical record that I’d want to hide or that I think would have an adverse effect on my potential employment, I’m just curious as to what they have the right to do, and what they’d be looking for.
I’m not a lawyer, but here’s my guess. The part you quoted says “…information as may be deemed necessary by the Company in judging my capability to do the work for which I am applying.” So if you’re applying for a job to look for flaws in delicate porcelain, they’d want to know if you had good eyesight. If you’re applying for a job loading and unloading freight, they’d need to know if you have a bad back. And so on.
Doesn’t sound all that unreasonable to me. Just that the potential employee has the necessary health to do the job.
This might make you feel a bit better, or maybe not. Whatever you agreed to on the job application, hospitals and physicians are not likely to release medical records unless you sign a proper-looking release. In fact they may subject themselves to civil and/or criminal liability if they do so. In most cases, the permission for access to medical records on a job application is simply boilerplate that’s given to every applicant even though it’s only an issue in a minority of cases. What it does for the employer in the event that your medical history becomes relevant to them for some reason is that it gives them added protection in case they eventually ask you to sign an actual release. You can refuse, of course, but then they could fire you.
Does that mean you couldn’t sue them if that happened? Not in itself; it depends on why they say they need the information, and whether they really do. There are no bright line rules here; this is the law we’re talking about, after all, and no general statement can cover all the possibilities. But it will serve as notice of what their expectations are: you’re expected to provide the information if they ask for it.
IANAL, however my father spent much of his professional life in civil rights for the US Department of Labor. So, our dinner table conversation covered a lot of discrimination law. It is not illegal to discriminate against someone if the disability prevents the potential employee from performing a portion of the job. If the job requires lifting a pallet weighing up to 70lb to a height of 5 1/2 feet it is not discriminatory not to hire someone who cannot perform that act. Classic example is a small restaurant where the serving trays, dishes, and glassware are kept in cabinets 6 feet above the floor, for space reasons. Part to the waitstaff’s job is to take the dishes, serving trays and glassware down for use everyday and put all of them away at night. It is not discriminatory not to hire someone who can not reach the cabinets. Therefore not hiring a person for the waitstaff who is in a wheelchair is not, in this case, an act of illegal discrimination.
In MixieArmadillo’s case it may be that the supermarket is looking to make sure that potential employees are able to physically do the job. As Rick pointed out workman’s compensation is a big part of the store’s budget. I would think this would be especially true for the physically demanding jobs of stocking as well as loading and unloading the trucks.
Thanks for the information. Like I said, there’s nothing I’d worry about any company finding out, per se, I just feel weird about potentially giving someone access to medical records and such. I guess it’s the idea of having someone say “Yeah, we’re gonna have you piss in a cup for us, and by the way, we’ve got the right to look into the rest of your medical history, too, whenever we ‘deem it necessary.’” I mean, really, it’s a grocery store, I don’t understand why they need that information. I’ve had much, much higher paying jobs with astronomically higher levels of responsibility, and no one ever felt the need to investigate my urine or ask for medical information.
The clause above would be legal in Illinois. For the H/Rs I have worked in NONE has actually tested for marijuana. That doesn’t mean that others don’t.
Companies can legally test you for conditions applicable to the job. Just as if you were a secretary they can require a typing test. They can test you for back problems. Again workman’s comp hit it right on the head. Bigger companies aren’t even so much interested in legit claims as people who scam WC. By revealing your backround they can figure out if you are scamming.
Also companies often screen EVERYONE as a way of preventing lawsuits. So they do EVERY employee regardless of need.
And as a reality check, on my last job, the Director of Sales interviewed me and he asked me “am I married,” “do I own a car,” “do I have any kids…” I got the job and quite frankly after getting to know him, he just wasn’t aware those aren’t legal quesitons. But in reality what can you do? Sue? Yell you can’t ask me that! Like that IS going to get you the job.
Yes they are, Opiate based pain killers will show up as opiates, some sleeping meds can show up as a barbituates or (I forgot the general term for valium etc *pam), and ADD meds will show up as amphetamines.
This is true. And for your information, it’s not illegal to ask any question in an interview, but it is illegal to hire based on information that you receive that is not job related. Actually, I shouldn’t say all questions, but most. If you come work at my place of work, I can ask if you go to a church and if so, which one, and not hire you depending on that answer.
She’s never had to do a drug screen, to my knowledge, but I have to wonder if my mother would pass one. She’s been on phenobarbitol to control her epilepsy for 35 years, so I’m pretty sure she’d test positive for barbituates. In that case, she’d pretty much have to open up her medical records to prove that she has a legitimate, legal reason to test positive. Wouldn’t she? Does anybody know for sure?
I imagine that you’d have to fill out something beforehand listing any medications you’ve recently taken, so you couldn’t claim, later, that you’d taken something that might have affected the test. Supposedly, Ibuprofen used to skew the results (a problem now resolved), as will cold medications and such.
You’re in Canada, so laws may differ, but in the United States there are questions which are illegal to ask during an interview. One of those would be whether you attend church and if so which one. Unless one is hiring for a religious-based business, one may not ask a potential employee about his or her religious beliefs.
No. In a case like you describe, the Medical Review Officer (a physician certified to review urine drug tests) is legally obliged to contact a person with a positive test, and ask them if they have a legitimate reason for having barbiturates in their system. The MRO may or may not decide to contact the patient’s physician to verify.
In a case such as you describe, the final report to the employer should actually read that the test is negative for signs of drugs of abuse. The details are none of the employer’s beeswax.
QtM, MD, Medical Review Officer (wizz quiz checker)