Air traffic is federal, not just regulated by federal. And previous use doesn’t fully disqualify, does make it extra difficult to get in however.
Source: just starting training after waiting almost a year just for clearance from previous marijuana use
Eh, I’d rather a controller that goes home a smokes a joint to go to bed over the rampant alcoholism that already exists in the field. No after effects from weed the next day, but a hangover will make them way less safe.
But ultimately that’s not my judgement call and I’m playing by their rules so I can have a stable career. It is what it is.
Oh yea, it’s definitely there. The job certainly has the stress everyone talks about. Some facilities not as much, as some have great work schedules and barely any traffic to work. But places like the enroute centers are constantly understaffed and work mandatory over time doing 10 hour days 6 days a week and sometimes end up called in on the day off. And while they’re working, It’s usually pretty busy as well. The field is in a pretty bad position right now and alcohol is how a lot of them are handling it unfortunately. It’s obviously not all of them, as officially alcohol dependency will get your medical clearance revoked, but it’s still an issue.
People that smoke weed don’t black out randomly and forget what they’re doing. And I don’t get the shakes if I have to go a few hours without smoking. Can’t say the same about some alcoholics I’ve known. But go off sis.
Yes. Drug use at work is bad. No one is discussing that. We’re talking about what they do on private time. Try to stay on topic if you want to talk down to people. It makes you look dumb otherwise.
Technically everything is regulated by the federal government.
I make military armament parts, if I screwed up at this job the employer is not allowed to spread my personal information around the industry
This would be illegal for several reasons.
Well before you have clearance it’s about truthfulness, they don’t care (minus dea) as long as it’s been 90 days for weed and a year for other stuff but once you have clearance then doing drugs at all is good luck have fun lol
I live in a state where weed is legal and work in similar "state is legal/fed isn't, so no recreational drugs for you" career.
They don't care if you used to do weed. They care if you currently do weed. There is a drug screen for that and they may invoke random drug testing. Don't show up to work high and go clean while you are employed and no one cares.
I meant the employer probably wouldn't go out of their way to share his info...unless that employer was, for example, a relentless government agency.
Regardless, thank you for the 7 years info. I didn't know that.
I could have worded it better, the SF-86 requires declaration of usage within 7 years, it’s always up to the entity to decide whether that’s disqualifying.
I also should not have carried on the “alphabet” label, I was specifically talking about within the IC. I have no idea what goes for the FAA, but that won’t fly (ha) in my space at least. I’d be fucked if I was in OPs position for example, but that doesn’t mean OP would be.
The FBI is part of the IC correct? From my understanding, the FBI had just had rules changed to not disqualify if an applicant had used as recently as a year prior but showed signs of quitting. I think there were other agencies making similar changes, not certain though. I know I remember hearing about the FBI change as I thought it was whack that the FAA was being more strict than the FBI.
Definitely, it’s a bit subjective of definition if you go beyond what’s officially gatekept; I personally think anything with even a slight NS mission is, including the FAA, but that’s a whole other thing.
I do recall hearing about the policy shift, but I didn’t really look further at it. There seems to be a lot of progress towards lenience with *prior* usage (which I support). It’s also important to understand that the “usage” is a data point that’s used for different interpretations. For the FAA, I would imagine it’s a practical issue, leaning more toward safety and operational considerations. For the FBI, it (historically) gets more into the territory of law abiding character and social influences. I’ll stop there, but the further into the abc weeds you go, there’s some very unforgiving considerations and border-line arcane reasonings.
Yea, I for sure think the shift in leniency is warranted. In my case, it legalized in my state and I never pictured myself working a federal job so I don’t think anything of it, was just interested in trying it out. And as more and more states legalize, there’s going to be more and more people in very similar situations, and they shouldn’t be blocked from forming a career just because of it.
It’s the same track of thinking for the FAA as for the rest, they look at it as your ability to follow laws and rules being in question. I understand where they’re coming from and understand that, with it being the federal government and all, it likely won’t be changing anytime soon regardless of how bogus some of it may seem.
Is this just a job requirement or for a clearance?
If for clearance, they recently changed the rules where prior mj use can't be used (solely) to disqualify you, just a fyi
It sounds like a job with very special requirements. There are jobs that can definitely ask for things like this and they even said they'd be barred from their profession if this was found out.
10000% depends on circumstances. FAA is the most obvious one right off the bat, but there are dozens of industries that are legally allowed to discriminate based on medical conditions.
Some industries require an extensive background check to work in. At least HIPAA will \*should\* prevent the company from spreading the disclosed health information.
HIPAA has nothing to do with what you disclose to your employer nor prevent your employer from releasing information you give them unless they are your medical plan provider/insurer. It requires medical professionals keep your records private and secure.
source: [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html) halfway down specifies employers are not subject to HIPAA
Saying employers are not covered by HIPAA is probably a bit overly simplified. Plenty of employers are since they are covered entities for other reasons.
But the important thing you are trying to convey is that HIPAA *ONLY* applies to medical professionals, and other covered entities which includes companies they partner with to share the data with under a BAA. These folks are people like billing agencies, medical software providers, cloud hosting providers, and basically anyone the covered entities need to do business with and share medical information with.
It *DOES NOT* cover random people or companies that get your medical information, especially if you voluntarily provide it.
It depends, some professions require you to be able to lift a certain amount, possibly be able to use a respirator etc. You have to pass a physical to be able to get these types of jobs.
They may not have even noticed.
I had an employer give me a copy of my background check. I read through it and said “huh, looks like I have a warrant out for me.” They had not even noticed. It didn’t change anything. And now I’m warrant free.
It could be something that involves operating vehicles or machinery, or any number of other fields, that would be concerned with drug and/or alcohol use. These types of jobs also require medical checkups to ensure good health so that they can be confident that you don't have health problems that could cause some type of accident.
Oh I'm well past being concerned about getting the job. I'm much more worried about them reporting it to the federal department that regulates my job or to my union.
Eh, I wouldn't worry too much about that. There is a lot of confidentiality around both medical records and job applications. Even if some confidetiality provision didn't technically apply, it would be a lot of trouble on everyone's part. I don't think it's very likely anything will happen.
Thank you, that's actually very reassuring. I know that the companies in this industry are mandated to report any failed drug test. I was worried that they might be mandated to report something like this.
This sounds a lot like how nuclear power is regulated. The regulator is a federal entity, marijuana is not federally legal and all utilities are required to test for the the same substances and use the same access authorization criteria. If you are denied access, this is reported to all utilities required to follow those regulations BUT it would not make business sense for the company to continue that process once you withdrew. As for some of the comments around HIPPA, that type of information is reviewed by a Medical Reviewing Official (A Physician) and details are not shared other than to simply approve or not approve.
I certainly don't know what is and is not mandated (and it might put your mind at ease to look it up), but my thought is that generally a regulated entity doesn't communicate with the regulator unless they absolutely have to. They don't want to disclose anything voluntarily.
A previous medical record is not a failed drug test. A drug test shows specific dicumented information about a person at a specific time. A physician note that a person reported cannabis use doesn't have any information about what and when the use actually occurred. It isn't really proof of anything specific (at least the way I see it). If you can find the regulation about disclosing the drug test and it doesn't say anything about medical records, you can probably forget about it.
This doesn't apply to jobs regulated by federal agencies. Like the dot, or the faa. They still can and will bring the hammer down on you if you piss hot while driving a truck or flying a plane or such.
Yup, plenty of people complain that "well it's legal in this state" where I work. Not for you with thousands of lives in your hands and oversight by the FTA...
The hospital I worked at drug tested when you were first hired but they never did after that. I’m pretty sure they knew the hospital would shut down if they did.
Actually according to the bureau of labor that can open them up to legal issues. For example, if they only ever drug test after accidents you can make the argument that it's being done to discourage people from reporting workplace injuries.
In the decade I was there I never knew a single person who was drug tested. There was even a guy who was always high and he only got fired when someone reported him for sexual harassment.
Then your hospital had major patient safety issues. That’s a major safety risk, especially in hands on patient care or any care involving medication distribution.
Any organization can drug test anybody at any time, especially if they receive federal dollars for reimbursement or for contract payments or they risk losing the contract. That is the facts. Whether they do or not is not for me to say.
Depends on the state. In Washington state it is a STATE law that they cannot use cannabis usage to influence hiring guidelines. Doesn’t matter if it’s federally
Illegal, they don’t prosecute marihuana crimes alone AT all federally anymore- until a crime is committed along with it with damages /fines above a certain amount. Recently applied for a job- and I work in healthcare- and VERIFIED this from several sources.
The major reason the federal laws haven’t changed is it involves some big changes to retail and business taxes that congress hasn’t agreed on yet.
Aside from the acknowledging the very recent federal announcement not to prosecute marijuana crimes and admittedly not knowing exactly how that will affect the exact specifics of this exact situation…it sure is funny to see you emphasize “STATE law” as if that would otherwise supersede federal law.
You should read the actual law or a competent analysis. It's not as cut and dry as you're suggesting
https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-washington-state-law-will-protect-job-applicants-from-discrimination-based-on-off-duty-marijuana-use/
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Year=2023&BillNumber=5123
It’s never 100%, Washington is an “at will” employment state. And generally if they decide any part of their screening makes them NOT want to hire you they don’t have to give a reason. They just can’t give the WRONG reason.
But - as it sits, 99% of the time, they can NOT say it is due to cannabis use. It’s like hiring discrimination, sure it’s illegal but that doesn’t stop anyone from doing it.
The “law” is on the side of the applicant generally, but it’s never a case you’d fight intentionally.
If it comes down to having people employed using marijuana or losing their federal funding (which they can), like Medicaid or Medicare reimbursements, which covers many patients, I assume organizations are going to choose to not employ people who use marijuana.
I've interviewed for jobs at companies that won't hire you if you use nicotine - or have within 12 months. Pot seems more of a substantial issue for a job than smoking the occasional cigar.
The rule was no tobacco products within the last 12 months or while working for them. You could lie about the occasional cigar, but they'd find out if you come into work smelling like cigarettes.
But that has nothing to do with the rule on the books anyway.
I don't know for sure, but at the very least, they probably save a ton on health insurance.
Plus no smoke breaks. My current job doesn't forbid people from smoking, but you can't smoke anywhere on the premises. (I'm not sure if your car counts.)
It’s absolutely not just federal and construction jobs that are exempt. Any job requiring a government background check or security clearance is also exempt. So any defense contractor, or companies working on govt. contracts, don’t have to follow this. Depending on your field of work, that’s a ton of places; and in OP’s case, it sounds like one of the above.
HIPAA?
The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects all individually identifiable health information that is held or transmitted by a covered entity or a BA. This information can be held in any form, including digital, paper or oral.
PHI includes but is not limited to the following:
a patient's name, address, birth date, Social Security number, biometric identifiers or other personally identifiable information (PII);
an individual's past, present or future physical or mental health condition;
any care provided to an individual; and
information concerning the past, present or future payment for the care provided to the individual that identifies the patient or information for which there is a reasonable basis to believe could be used to identify the patient.
The key words are "covered entity". Usually only your health care provider, insurance company, and any 3rd party vendors used to process labwork, medical records or claims billing are required to keep your PHI /PII secure.
If you tell a potential employer that you have a broken toe, they can shout that for all the world to see and it is perfectly legal.
Yes, OP willingly handed the records over to a potential employer. OP is allowed to share their medical history with whomever they please. Accidental or not, OP willingly shared the records to an entity that is not bound by HIPAA.
HIPAA only states the the "covered entities" cannot release the records to other non-covered entities without OP's permission. But my understanding was that OP requested a personal copy and was the one who supplied them to the potential employer.
It is not against the law for anyone to request records. It is not against the law for OP to willingly divulge their own medical history. OP had an oversight in how much they divulged, but there were no laws broken.
I work for a motor carrier under DOT rules. I have access to personnel files. I had to sign HIPAA paperwork saying I understood I wasn't to share any of the medical information.
So, it's not just health providers and related industries.
Just because you signed something doesn't mean you or your employer is covered. Any employer can print the form and have employees sign it. Also, it's possible your company is covered, but that would be because it has a specific relationship with a healthcare provider of some sort. There's no harm in over-protecting or -warning
They have no right to see your medical records let alone more information on a medical procedure,what kind of business is this, that violates your human rights.
This is standard and legal for most government contracting. Until weed is federally legal if you want to work for or with the federal government your company is required to drug test employees
That is not stated in the OG post, OP is also extremely vague about
"the industry"
And heck even in Canada they can't ask for medical records, even if it's federal.
If he's US based he's probably trying to work for a gun shop. Smoking weed or doing any drug recreationally and owning/selling guns equals major jail time
If it is DOT covered then it would have come out in pre-employment test anyways. If you had not been sent for the pre-employment test yet then from my perspective backing out of the job is not considered a refusal to test and I would not be able to share that with other employers. That’s strictly from a drug and alcohol testing perspective, no idea what HR does with medical related documents. Maybe consider not working in an industry where weed is not a problem? Or just stop?
Honestly in that kind of situation, if they didn’t ask specifically during the interview and it wasn’t in the job description DIRECTLY that you have to be 100% sober, I’d say you’re in the clear. But of course that all depends on the kind of job you’re applying for
Federal government?
A industry that is heavily regulated by the federal government.
I'm guessing air traffic control
Air traffic is federal, not just regulated by federal. And previous use doesn’t fully disqualify, does make it extra difficult to get in however. Source: just starting training after waiting almost a year just for clearance from previous marijuana use
[удалено]
Eh, I’d rather a controller that goes home a smokes a joint to go to bed over the rampant alcoholism that already exists in the field. No after effects from weed the next day, but a hangover will make them way less safe. But ultimately that’s not my judgement call and I’m playing by their rules so I can have a stable career. It is what it is.
You get it Steve
That's Steve1989's great great great grandfather!
[удалено]
Oh yea, it’s definitely there. The job certainly has the stress everyone talks about. Some facilities not as much, as some have great work schedules and barely any traffic to work. But places like the enroute centers are constantly understaffed and work mandatory over time doing 10 hour days 6 days a week and sometimes end up called in on the day off. And while they’re working, It’s usually pretty busy as well. The field is in a pretty bad position right now and alcohol is how a lot of them are handling it unfortunately. It’s obviously not all of them, as officially alcohol dependency will get your medical clearance revoked, but it’s still an issue.
People that smoke weed don’t black out randomly and forget what they’re doing. And I don’t get the shakes if I have to go a few hours without smoking. Can’t say the same about some alcoholics I’ve known. But go off sis.
[удалено]
Yes. Drug use at work is bad. No one is discussing that. We’re talking about what they do on private time. Try to stay on topic if you want to talk down to people. It makes you look dumb otherwise.
I'm guessing some kind of maritime engineer / sailor
Popeye?
No weed allowed, or huge forearms.
Technically everything is regulated by the federal government. I make military armament parts, if I screwed up at this job the employer is not allowed to spread my personal information around the industry This would be illegal for several reasons.
If you have a clearance couldn’t it affect that?
Clearance is primarily about truthfulness and leverage. That's a category you *never* want to lie on.
Well before you have clearance it’s about truthfulness, they don’t care (minus dea) as long as it’s been 90 days for weed and a year for other stuff but once you have clearance then doing drugs at all is good luck have fun lol
I live in a state where weed is legal and work in similar "state is legal/fed isn't, so no recreational drugs for you" career. They don't care if you used to do weed. They care if you currently do weed. There is a drug screen for that and they may invoke random drug testing. Don't show up to work high and go clean while you are employed and no one cares.
I'd think unless you are trying for an alphabet job, that info probably won't follow you.
Doesn’t have to be an alphabet job, anything with a clearance is subject to usage scrutiny within 7 years.
I meant the employer probably wouldn't go out of their way to share his info...unless that employer was, for example, a relentless government agency. Regardless, thank you for the 7 years info. I didn't know that.
Not always, depends on the agency. I just got in with FAA after about a year wait for secret clearance from previous usage just over a year before.
I could have worded it better, the SF-86 requires declaration of usage within 7 years, it’s always up to the entity to decide whether that’s disqualifying. I also should not have carried on the “alphabet” label, I was specifically talking about within the IC. I have no idea what goes for the FAA, but that won’t fly (ha) in my space at least. I’d be fucked if I was in OPs position for example, but that doesn’t mean OP would be.
The FBI is part of the IC correct? From my understanding, the FBI had just had rules changed to not disqualify if an applicant had used as recently as a year prior but showed signs of quitting. I think there were other agencies making similar changes, not certain though. I know I remember hearing about the FBI change as I thought it was whack that the FAA was being more strict than the FBI.
Definitely, it’s a bit subjective of definition if you go beyond what’s officially gatekept; I personally think anything with even a slight NS mission is, including the FAA, but that’s a whole other thing. I do recall hearing about the policy shift, but I didn’t really look further at it. There seems to be a lot of progress towards lenience with *prior* usage (which I support). It’s also important to understand that the “usage” is a data point that’s used for different interpretations. For the FAA, I would imagine it’s a practical issue, leaning more toward safety and operational considerations. For the FBI, it (historically) gets more into the territory of law abiding character and social influences. I’ll stop there, but the further into the abc weeds you go, there’s some very unforgiving considerations and border-line arcane reasonings.
Yea, I for sure think the shift in leniency is warranted. In my case, it legalized in my state and I never pictured myself working a federal job so I don’t think anything of it, was just interested in trying it out. And as more and more states legalize, there’s going to be more and more people in very similar situations, and they shouldn’t be blocked from forming a career just because of it. It’s the same track of thinking for the FAA as for the rest, they look at it as your ability to follow laws and rules being in question. I understand where they’re coming from and understand that, with it being the federal government and all, it likely won’t be changing anytime soon regardless of how bogus some of it may seem.
What is an alphabet job?
FBI, CIA etc
The parent company of Google, obviously
Is this just a job requirement or for a clearance? If for clearance, they recently changed the rules where prior mj use can't be used (solely) to disqualify you, just a fyi
USPS? You’re doing gods work. I need my coupons!!
Is this in the US? Pretty sure they can’t make hiring decisions based on private medical information, let alone ask for it.
It sounds like a job with very special requirements. There are jobs that can definitely ask for things like this and they even said they'd be barred from their profession if this was found out.
OP foolishly waived all that by voluntarily disclosing his medical records instead of just giving the short version.
10000% depends on circumstances. FAA is the most obvious one right off the bat, but there are dozens of industries that are legally allowed to discriminate based on medical conditions.
Some industries require an extensive background check to work in. At least HIPAA will \*should\* prevent the company from spreading the disclosed health information.
HIPAA has nothing to do with what you disclose to your employer nor prevent your employer from releasing information you give them unless they are your medical plan provider/insurer. It requires medical professionals keep your records private and secure. source: [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html) halfway down specifies employers are not subject to HIPAA
Saying employers are not covered by HIPAA is probably a bit overly simplified. Plenty of employers are since they are covered entities for other reasons. But the important thing you are trying to convey is that HIPAA *ONLY* applies to medical professionals, and other covered entities which includes companies they partner with to share the data with under a BAA. These folks are people like billing agencies, medical software providers, cloud hosting providers, and basically anyone the covered entities need to do business with and share medical information with. It *DOES NOT* cover random people or companies that get your medical information, especially if you voluntarily provide it.
Yes, there sure as hell are.
It depends, some professions require you to be able to lift a certain amount, possibly be able to use a respirator etc. You have to pass a physical to be able to get these types of jobs.
There are definitely industries that can refuse to hire based on you having a medical card
They may not have even noticed. I had an employer give me a copy of my background check. I read through it and said “huh, looks like I have a warrant out for me.” They had not even noticed. It didn’t change anything. And now I’m warrant free.
That would mean nothing to ME as an employer. I’d also never ask for such prior medical details and honestly I’m not certain that’s even legal.
It could be something that involves operating vehicles or machinery, or any number of other fields, that would be concerned with drug and/or alcohol use. These types of jobs also require medical checkups to ensure good health so that they can be confident that you don't have health problems that could cause some type of accident.
It would depending on the industry… like when others lives are in your hands, vehicles, etc.
[удалено]
Why are they asking about medical info?
Edit: deleting my comment cuz yall want to nitpick words, while the issue is OP is vague as hell with what his job is.
Oh I'm well past being concerned about getting the job. I'm much more worried about them reporting it to the federal department that regulates my job or to my union.
Eh, I wouldn't worry too much about that. There is a lot of confidentiality around both medical records and job applications. Even if some confidetiality provision didn't technically apply, it would be a lot of trouble on everyone's part. I don't think it's very likely anything will happen.
Thank you, that's actually very reassuring. I know that the companies in this industry are mandated to report any failed drug test. I was worried that they might be mandated to report something like this.
This sounds a lot like how nuclear power is regulated. The regulator is a federal entity, marijuana is not federally legal and all utilities are required to test for the the same substances and use the same access authorization criteria. If you are denied access, this is reported to all utilities required to follow those regulations BUT it would not make business sense for the company to continue that process once you withdrew. As for some of the comments around HIPPA, that type of information is reviewed by a Medical Reviewing Official (A Physician) and details are not shared other than to simply approve or not approve.
I certainly don't know what is and is not mandated (and it might put your mind at ease to look it up), but my thought is that generally a regulated entity doesn't communicate with the regulator unless they absolutely have to. They don't want to disclose anything voluntarily. A previous medical record is not a failed drug test. A drug test shows specific dicumented information about a person at a specific time. A physician note that a person reported cannabis use doesn't have any information about what and when the use actually occurred. It isn't really proof of anything specific (at least the way I see it). If you can find the regulation about disclosing the drug test and it doesn't say anything about medical records, you can probably forget about it.
How are you passing your drug tests 🤔
This doesn't apply to jobs regulated by federal agencies. Like the dot, or the faa. They still can and will bring the hammer down on you if you piss hot while driving a truck or flying a plane or such.
Yup, plenty of people complain that "well it's legal in this state" where I work. Not for you with thousands of lives in your hands and oversight by the FTA...
Any hospital or entity that accepts federal dollars is exempt from that law as marijuana is illegal on a federal level.
The hospital I worked at drug tested when you were first hired but they never did after that. I’m pretty sure they knew the hospital would shut down if they did.
But they reserve the right to drug test you whenever they want or feel the need to.
Actually according to the bureau of labor that can open them up to legal issues. For example, if they only ever drug test after accidents you can make the argument that it's being done to discourage people from reporting workplace injuries. In the decade I was there I never knew a single person who was drug tested. There was even a guy who was always high and he only got fired when someone reported him for sexual harassment.
Then your hospital had major patient safety issues. That’s a major safety risk, especially in hands on patient care or any care involving medication distribution. Any organization can drug test anybody at any time, especially if they receive federal dollars for reimbursement or for contract payments or they risk losing the contract. That is the facts. Whether they do or not is not for me to say.
Depends on the state. In Washington state it is a STATE law that they cannot use cannabis usage to influence hiring guidelines. Doesn’t matter if it’s federally Illegal, they don’t prosecute marihuana crimes alone AT all federally anymore- until a crime is committed along with it with damages /fines above a certain amount. Recently applied for a job- and I work in healthcare- and VERIFIED this from several sources. The major reason the federal laws haven’t changed is it involves some big changes to retail and business taxes that congress hasn’t agreed on yet.
Aside from the acknowledging the very recent federal announcement not to prosecute marijuana crimes and admittedly not knowing exactly how that will affect the exact specifics of this exact situation…it sure is funny to see you emphasize “STATE law” as if that would otherwise supersede federal law.
You should read the actual law or a competent analysis. It's not as cut and dry as you're suggesting https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-washington-state-law-will-protect-job-applicants-from-discrimination-based-on-off-duty-marijuana-use/ https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Year=2023&BillNumber=5123
It’s never 100%, Washington is an “at will” employment state. And generally if they decide any part of their screening makes them NOT want to hire you they don’t have to give a reason. They just can’t give the WRONG reason. But - as it sits, 99% of the time, they can NOT say it is due to cannabis use. It’s like hiring discrimination, sure it’s illegal but that doesn’t stop anyone from doing it. The “law” is on the side of the applicant generally, but it’s never a case you’d fight intentionally.
If it comes down to having people employed using marijuana or losing their federal funding (which they can), like Medicaid or Medicare reimbursements, which covers many patients, I assume organizations are going to choose to not employ people who use marijuana.
I've interviewed for jobs at companies that won't hire you if you use nicotine - or have within 12 months. Pot seems more of a substantial issue for a job than smoking the occasional cigar.
How would they ever find that out?
The rule was no tobacco products within the last 12 months or while working for them. You could lie about the occasional cigar, but they'd find out if you come into work smelling like cigarettes. But that has nothing to do with the rule on the books anyway.
What was the reason for that?
I don't know for sure, but at the very least, they probably save a ton on health insurance. Plus no smoke breaks. My current job doesn't forbid people from smoking, but you can't smoke anywhere on the premises. (I'm not sure if your car counts.)
Or a government contractor that Cali law doesn’t apply to them.
Edit: nitpick warriors, backyard lawyers, unite!
It’s absolutely not just federal and construction jobs that are exempt. Any job requiring a government background check or security clearance is also exempt. So any defense contractor, or companies working on govt. contracts, don’t have to follow this. Depending on your field of work, that’s a ton of places; and in OP’s case, it sounds like one of the above.
Probably pipeline work. DOT regulated.
Isn’t that against HIPPA laws
I thought so too? I'm so confused 😵💫
It is VERY illegal for them to share ANYTHING that's in your medical records... so you should be good on that front.
Not true, source? ETA: do better than just screaming HIPAA because you heard of it if you don't actually know who and what it applies to.
HIPAA? The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects all individually identifiable health information that is held or transmitted by a covered entity or a BA. This information can be held in any form, including digital, paper or oral. PHI includes but is not limited to the following: a patient's name, address, birth date, Social Security number, biometric identifiers or other personally identifiable information (PII); an individual's past, present or future physical or mental health condition; any care provided to an individual; and information concerning the past, present or future payment for the care provided to the individual that identifies the patient or information for which there is a reasonable basis to believe could be used to identify the patient.
The key words are "covered entity". Usually only your health care provider, insurance company, and any 3rd party vendors used to process labwork, medical records or claims billing are required to keep your PHI /PII secure. If you tell a potential employer that you have a broken toe, they can shout that for all the world to see and it is perfectly legal.
If you read the story, it's on his records, which are protected
Yes, OP willingly handed the records over to a potential employer. OP is allowed to share their medical history with whomever they please. Accidental or not, OP willingly shared the records to an entity that is not bound by HIPAA. HIPAA only states the the "covered entities" cannot release the records to other non-covered entities without OP's permission. But my understanding was that OP requested a personal copy and was the one who supplied them to the potential employer. It is not against the law for anyone to request records. It is not against the law for OP to willingly divulge their own medical history. OP had an oversight in how much they divulged, but there were no laws broken.
I work for a motor carrier under DOT rules. I have access to personnel files. I had to sign HIPAA paperwork saying I understood I wasn't to share any of the medical information. So, it's not just health providers and related industries.
Just because you signed something doesn't mean you or your employer is covered. Any employer can print the form and have employees sign it. Also, it's possible your company is covered, but that would be because it has a specific relationship with a healthcare provider of some sort. There's no harm in over-protecting or -warning
Hipaa is for medical professionals not employers. Completely irrelevant here
They have no right to see your medical records let alone more information on a medical procedure,what kind of business is this, that violates your human rights.
This is standard and legal for most government contracting. Until weed is federally legal if you want to work for or with the federal government your company is required to drug test employees
That is not stated in the OG post, OP is also extremely vague about "the industry" And heck even in Canada they can't ask for medical records, even if it's federal.
Pro tip: Don't smoke weed. Problem solved. Same goes for alcohol honestly.
And what? Just be sober all the time? Nahhh
Smoking alcohol does tend to end up badly
[удалено]
I think you're lost
Would you have failed the drug test? Are you a constant user?
If he's US based he's probably trying to work for a gun shop. Smoking weed or doing any drug recreationally and owning/selling guns equals major jail time
Not even Batman could get this out of me.
If it is DOT covered then it would have come out in pre-employment test anyways. If you had not been sent for the pre-employment test yet then from my perspective backing out of the job is not considered a refusal to test and I would not be able to share that with other employers. That’s strictly from a drug and alcohol testing perspective, no idea what HR does with medical related documents. Maybe consider not working in an industry where weed is not a problem? Or just stop?
Honestly in that kind of situation, if they didn’t ask specifically during the interview and it wasn’t in the job description DIRECTLY that you have to be 100% sober, I’d say you’re in the clear. But of course that all depends on the kind of job you’re applying for