I was hurt at work close to the end of my shift. I went to my supervisor who told me to clock out and he'd take me to the doctor. After I left the doctors office he told me he was taking me for a drug test. I informed him I was in some pain and off the clock and didn't think I should have to go. I was fired on the spot. Is this legal?
Fired while off the clock
- Thread Starter Army_Vet
- Start date
- Status
Patricia_Young
New Member
Any medical attention during regularly scheduled hours on the day of the OTJ is hours worked and must be paid.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.43.htm
However, you refused to go and deal with the hours worked issue later.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.43.htm
However, you refused to go and deal with the hours worked issue later.
Then why did they make me clock out? It seems if they knew they were sending me for a drug test they wouldn't have made me clock out. I actually asked them if I should clock out or stay on the clock during my trip to the doctor and they said to clock out.
Section Number: 785.43
Section Name: Medical attention.
Time spent by an employee in waiting for and receiving medical
attention on the premises or at the direction of the employer during the
employee's normal working hours on days when he is working constitutes
hours worked.
The law above states says I have to be paid for my time at the doctors office waiting to be treated for an injury but after I left the doctors office they wanted me to go for a drug test. A drug test doesn't fall under getting medical attention for an injury and I was off the clock.
Section Number: 785.43
Section Name: Medical attention.
Time spent by an employee in waiting for and receiving medical
attention on the premises or at the direction of the employer during the
employee's normal working hours on days when he is working constitutes
hours worked.
The law above states says I have to be paid for my time at the doctors office waiting to be treated for an injury but after I left the doctors office they wanted me to go for a drug test. A drug test doesn't fall under getting medical attention for an injury and I was off the clock.
Last edited:
Patricia_Young
New Member
My reading of the law is that an argument could be made that the drug test was related to the injury. Were you paid for the time at the doctor's office at least?
However, the bigger problem is that you refused to take the drug test, which was a legal work instruction.
However, the bigger problem is that you refused to take the drug test, which was a legal work instruction.
It may have been a work instruction but that instruction came while I was off the clock and had already left the doctors office. My medical treatment had already been taken care of.I might agree with you if while I was at the doctors office the doctor came in and said my employer wanted me to pee in a cup. The demand for me to take the drug test came 30 minutes after my medical treatment had ended and I had already left the office. How would you say a drug test is part of medical treatment when the people who collect the samples where we do the drug testing are not medical doctors? I'm not sure why you think that's medical attention for an injury.I might also agree with you if they would have told me to stay on the clock instead of making me clock out. The law you showed me clearly states I would be paid for the time I was receiving medical attention,which I don't agree that a drug test is "medical attention". The medical attention part was while I was at the doctors getting checked out. After I left there the attention was over. The reason the told me to clock out is because the have a no overtime policy right now. They were trying to save themselves a few dollars by making me clock out to go to the doctor.My time to go home is 3:30. They made me clock out at 3:30,only to make me go after my shift was over.I just don't agree that the drug test fell under medical care. I could have went for the test the next day,which I told them I would do. I had just been hurt,wasn't feeling well,they'd already made me clock out.
Last edited:
jacksgal
New Member
Many employers require employees hurt on job to take a drug test. I think you can see why even if it does not apply to you. Your refusal to take this test gave your employer cause for concern and thsu fired you. Unless you have an employee contract or cba that says otherwise your firing was legal. Just being curious what would drug had shown if taken?
Well I'm happy to tell you that you are wrong. I was put in contact with a lawyer who told me in my state that an employer cannot force me to take a drug test if I was clocked out and the request for the test was made off company property,which it was. So no,the firing was not legal. Wherever it was you got your info from was wrong and he has offered to help me out with this case. You were right about one thing,the best advice came from my attorney!
Last edited:
jacksgal
New Member
If you read the site disclaimer it clearly states
Its always wise to seek advice from an Attorney in your area before acting. I am glad you got the info you needed best of luck to you
Its always wise to seek advice from an Attorney in your area before acting. I am glad you got the info you needed best of luck to you
I do apologize if I sounded hateful. This has just got me a little stressed. By the way,no drugs would have shown up. That's not why I refused. I had just gotten out of the doctors office where I was told I would need surgery for a hernia I received at work. I was hurting and already off the clock. Once again,I'm sorry if I sounded hateful. Thanks for trying to help.
Last edited:
Patricia_Young
New Member
All I could find was this:
This cite does not define "random" and considering it does not give the Supreme Court case referred to, I have no way of confirming whether "random" was defined in the case.
However, your testing was not "random"; it was directly related to your injury.
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing-2
This cite does not define "random" and considering it does not give the Supreme Court case referred to, I have no way of confirming whether "random" was defined in the case.
However, your testing was not "random"; it was directly related to your injury.
Patricia_Young
New Member
From what I could find, there is no LAW either way; it was a state Supreme Court decision, which I couldn't look up because I don't know the names of the parties involved. Perhaps that is what the attorney you spoke to was referring to.
I have found out that my employer cannot make me take a random drug screening in the state of WV. I am only obligated to take a test for pre hiring and in the case of an accident. Now about two years ago my employer told all of the employees we had to start taking random screenings by WV law,which I just found out was a lie. They made us sign papers that we agreed to it and told us if we didn't sign them we would be fired,I have 25 witnesses to that meeting.Do you think it's legal for them to threaten us with termination if we didn't sign these papers? Thanks for your help by the way.
Patricia_Young
New Member
Is it legal to threaten if you don't sign? Yes. Is it legal to terminate you if you don't sign? No.
Having said that, if the agreement isn't enforceable anyway, you lose nothing by signing.
Having said that, if the agreement isn't enforceable anyway, you lose nothing by signing.
- Status
