You’ve all seen it, if it’s not in your employee handbook, it’s on a poster or placard or somewhere else in your office or place of work: “We reserve the right to require you submit to a drug-test at our discretion. Refusal will result in immediate termination.” If it doesn’t say that, than it says something similar. It’s pretty boiler-plate HR language, especially if you didn’t have to pee in a cup to get the job in the first place.
Well, apparently this North Branford public works employee didn’t get the memo. (Or, maybe he did get the memo, but he was really concentrating on peeing at the time) WFSB.com reports:
According to reports, Pond’s suit says he was asked to take a drug test in February 2008. The suit says he asked for a blood test instead of a urine test because of a medical condition, but was refused. Daniel Pond, who worked for the town from 2002 until he was fired in 2009, filed the suit this month in New Haven Superior Court.”
Now, I’m no doctor but I didn’t realize being “pee-shy” was a diagnosed medical condition. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, this dude did have some sort of pee-condition and had a catheter or something… then there would certainly be a way for him to produce urine to be tested. I mean, you have to pee eventually…it’s the law, according to your kidneys. Something doesn’t smell right with this case.
On the flip side, if the dude was willing to offer up blood in place of urine, I’m thinking he has nothing to hide. Personally, I’m a lot more willing to stand and pee in front of an auditorium full of people than I am to have someone stab me in the arm with a needle and drain blood from me.
Regardless, best of luck with your court case sir. I’m sure trial will be riveting. In the mean time, I’m off to the doctor to see if I can get “not getting to work on-time” diagnosed as a medical condition.