drug test in Oklahoma

2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hogue, 1995 OK 64 , 898 P.2d 153 [Suspension of six months for making a false statement under oath, failing a drug test, and driving under the influence while transporting an open container.]; State ex rel.

2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hogue, 1995 OK 64 , 898 P.2d 153 [Suspension of six months for making a false statement under oath, failing a drug test, and driving under the influence while transporting an open container.]; State ex rel.

2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 1992 OK 79 , 848 P.2d 538 [No discipline imposed where attorney, after having been twice convicted of driv ing under the influence, had been sober for over six years.]. .

2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 1992 OK 79 , 848 P.2d 538 [No discipline imposed where attorney, after having been twice convicted of driv ing under the influence, had been sober for over six years.]. .

2010Appellant ignored the statutory procedure and waived the right to confrontation. ¶ 29 Judge Chapel in dissent argues that admission of the drug analysis report under section 751 unconstitutionally denied Appellant's right to confront his accusers at preliminary examination, relying on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009).

2010Appellant ignored the statutory procedure and waived the right to confrontation. ¶ 29 Judge Chapel in dissent argues that admission of the drug analysis report under section 751 unconstitutionally denied Appellant's right to confront his accusers at preliminary examination, relying on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009).

2002Specifically, Freeman v. Continental Baking Co., 212 Ga.App. 855 , 443 S.E.2d 520 -21 (1994) [Employee denied benefits after having been fired for failing a drug test]; Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Watson, 219 Va. 830 , 252 S.E.2d 310, 312 (1979) [Employee denied benefits after having been discharged for poor work performance and frequent absences.].

2002Specifically, Freeman v. Continental Baking Co., 212 Ga.App. 855 , 443 S.E.2d 520 -21 (1994) [Employee denied benefits after having been fired for failing a drug test]; Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Watson, 219 Va. 830 , 252 S.E.2d 310, 312 (1979) [Employee denied benefits after having been discharged for poor work performance and frequent absences.].

1999We agree. ¶3 The use or abuse of illegal drugs by an injured employee works an exclusion of coverage when “the use or abuse rendered the employee incapable of acting in the manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties, and using reasonable care, would have acted at the time of the injury.” 85 O.S.Supp.1998 § 11(A)(3). “[T]he legislature intended that the question of impairment ... be decided ‘objectively’ on the basis of all the surrounding circumstances and evidence bearing on an employee’s condition and ability to work, including lay t

1999We agree. ¶3 The use or abuse of illegal drugs by an injured employee works an exclusion of coverage when “the use or abuse rendered the employee incapable of acting in the manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties, and using reasonable care, would have acted at the time of the injury.” 85 O.S.Supp.1998 § 11(A)(3). “[T]he legislature intended that the question of impairment ... be decided ‘objectively’ on the basis of all the surrounding circumstances and evidence bearing on an employee’s condition and ability to work, including lay t

1995One of the reasons we so held was based on the view that the following limitation on the scope of implied contracts created by employee handbooks applied, to wit: “the promises in the employee manual which may operate to restrict the employer’s power to discharge must be in definite terms-not in the form of vague assurances.” Id. at 368 .

1994See Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81 , 609 A.2d 11 (1992) (the court upheld the random urine testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions); Rothweil v. Wetterau, Inc., 820 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App.1991); Groves v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 70 Ohio App.3d 656 , 591 N.E.2d 875 (1991).

1994See Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81 , 609 A.2d 11 (1992) (the court upheld the random urine testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions); Rothweil v. Wetterau, Inc., 820 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App.1991); Groves v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 70 Ohio App.3d 656 , 591 N.E.2d 875 (1991).

1994See Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81 , 609 A.2d 11 (1992) (the court upheld the random urine testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions); Rothweil v. Wetterau, Inc., 820 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App.1991); Groves v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 70 Ohio App.3d 656 , 591 N.E.2d 875 (1991).

1992We adopt instead the holding of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas in a case nearly identical to No-votney on its facts, which involved Novot-ney’s employer, Grace Drilling Co. In Grace Drilling Co. v. Director of Labor, 31 Ark.App. 81 , 790 S.W.2d 907 (1990), the Court of Appeals of Arkansas held that Grace’s former employee’s failure to pass a drug test, without more, was a wilful violation of Grace’s rules, and disqualified the former employee from unemployment benefits.

1992We adopt instead the holding of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas in a case nearly identical to No-votney on its facts, which involved Novot-ney’s employer, Grace Drilling Co. In Grace Drilling Co. v. Director of Labor, 31 Ark.App. 81 , 790 S.W.2d 907 (1990), the Court of Appeals of Arkansas held that Grace’s former employee’s failure to pass a drug test, without more, was a wilful violation of Grace’s rules, and disqualified the former employee from unemployment benefits.

1991Doby cites Grace Drilling Co. v. Novotny, 811 P.2d 907 (Okl.App.1991), and Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa Co. v. Logan, 789 P.2d 636 (Okl.App.1989), as standing for the proposition that there must be a showing of bizarre behavior or loss of productivity before an employer may request a drug test.

1991Doby cites Grace Drilling Co. v. Novotny, 811 P.2d 907 (Okl.App.1991), and Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa Co. v. Logan, 789 P.2d 636 (Okl.App.1989), as standing for the proposition that there must be a showing of bizarre behavior or loss of productivity before an employer may request a drug test.