search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Teacher Is Someone Else’s Mistake


Your Best P


Five Recent Drug Testing Cases That Didn’t Need to Happen (That Cost Employers Money)


BY WILLIAM J. JUDGE, JD, LL.M., DRUG SCREENING COMPLIANCE INSTITUTE


erhaps to call the people in the following cases “stupid” or “ignorant” is a bit harsh, but to


avoid costly mistakes, employers must become aware of the rules that apply to their testing programs. After more than 30 years of trying to convince people that they can avoid financial liability by simply following the rules, it can be frustrating to see the same costly mistakes made over and over. At events like the recent Drug & Alcohol


Testing Industry Association (DATIA) conference in New Orleans, there are oſten discussions about this issue. Some say it’s just employers & decision makers “burying their heads in the sand” or those with the atitude of, “it won’t happen to me.” And of course, there’s always the emphatic, “I don’t intend to spend one minute nor one dime until DOT walks through that door.”1 Understood. I suppose as a lawyer I should be grateful people keep making mistakes. But I consider myself more of an educator than a lawyer. (My wife, a trial lawyer of 30 years, would agree with that). I continue to believe that we can learn from others’ mistakes. So, here are five recent cases where silly mistakes were made that, if known and corrected beforehand, could have saved a lot of time and money. Second guessing someone else’s actions is always easy. Tese cases are always


8 datia focus debatable.2 But, as you read these brief case


descriptions, think about what you would have done differently.


Case #1. Lingo v. Early County Gin, Inc.3 (Est. six figures)4 Te Employer lost the opportunity to raise the rebutable presumption of intoxication defense to a workers’ compensation claim because the statutory rules were not strictly followed. Earnest Lingo worked at the Early


County Gin Company (Employer) as a “module feeder.” Part of his job included directing drivers as they backed large module trucks into a loading-dock area. On the day of the accident, Lingo was sweeping coton from the module area. A truck began backing toward the loading dock. Te truck struck Lingo from behind, pinning him against the dock. Lingo was


summer 2018


When Life Hands You Lemons...


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52