Is it legal to discriminate due to the medicine used to treat a medical condition?Is it legal to discriminate...
How to check participants in at events?
How can I successfully establish a nationwide combat training program for a large country?
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
How do I repair my stair bannister?
node command while defining a coordinate in TikZ
Is exact Kanji stroke length important?
Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?
A known event to a history junkie
How did Monica know how to operate Carol's "designer"?
Is it legal to discriminate due to the medicine used to treat a medical condition?
word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome
Meta programming: Declare a new struct on the fly
Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?
Visiting the UK as unmarried couple
How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?
Blender - show edges angles “direction”
Stereotypical names
Why isn't KTEX's runway designation 10/28 instead of 9/27?
Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?
Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?
Installing PowerShell on 32-bit Kali OS fails
Is there enough fresh water in the world to eradicate the drinking water crisis?
Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?
What if somebody invests in my application?
Is it legal to discriminate due to the medicine used to treat a medical condition?
Is it legal to discriminate in employment based on needing future sponsorship?Legal to treat customers differently based on where they live?What exactly is a “major medical condition”?Is it legal in California to require extra behavior/communication from a single employee?Is it legal for a bank to discriminate against someone by the services they offer based upon their marital status?In UK, can religious institutions discriminate against the sexual orientation of their own clergy?“due process” hearing concerning returning to work after medical leaveIs there a legal definition of race in the US?How does the US legal system treat car accidents with pedestrian casualties?What questions can be asked in interview? Can questions that can be used to illegally discriminate be asked?
I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;
- Must be a U.S. citizen.
- Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
- Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
- Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
- Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
- Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
- No use of marijuana within the last three years.
- No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
- No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
- No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.
- Must never have been convicted of a felony.
- Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
- Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)
Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.
Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.
- Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?
- If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?
united-states employment discrimination
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
add a comment |
I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;
- Must be a U.S. citizen.
- Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
- Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
- Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
- Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
- Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
- No use of marijuana within the last three years.
- No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
- No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
- No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.
- Must never have been convicted of a felony.
- Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
- Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)
Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.
Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.
- Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?
- If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?
united-states employment discrimination
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
add a comment |
I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;
- Must be a U.S. citizen.
- Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
- Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
- Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
- Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
- Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
- No use of marijuana within the last three years.
- No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
- No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
- No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.
- Must never have been convicted of a felony.
- Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
- Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)
Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.
Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.
- Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?
- If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?
united-states employment discrimination
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;
- Must be a U.S. citizen.
- Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
- Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
- Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
- Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
- Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
- No use of marijuana within the last three years.
- No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
- No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
- No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.
- Must never have been convicted of a felony.
- Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
- Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)
Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.
Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.
- Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?
- If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?
united-states employment discrimination
united-states employment discrimination
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
edited 4 hours ago
Digital fire
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
asked 4 hours ago
Digital fireDigital fire
1,75411133
1,75411133
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).
The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.
2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.
In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.
It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38419%2fis-it-legal-to-discriminate-due-to-the-medicine-used-to-treat-a-medical-conditio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).
The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.
2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.
In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.
It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
add a comment |
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).
The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.
2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.
In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.
It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
add a comment |
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).
The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.
2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.
In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.
It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).
The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.
2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.
In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.
It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
answered 4 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
51.2k259131
51.2k259131
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38419%2fis-it-legal-to-discriminate-due-to-the-medicine-used-to-treat-a-medical-conditio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
