TexasCHLforum.com

Arrest does not equal conviction.

I was arrested a couple years back for possession of a controlled substance. I had some prescription pain meds in one of those SMTWTFS pill cases from Walgreens. I found out the hard way that it is grounds for an arrest, in Pearland anyways. CHL was suspended, had to get a lawyer and the whole nine yards. Charges were dropped of course once I went to court with copies of my prescription.

As AndyC said anyone can be arrested for almost anything. IMHO if she doesn't have prior history (convictions) she might have gotten a bad rap. Having to pay for a lawyer and fight charges sucks as is, loosing a job on top of that is harsh. Innocent until proven guilty, but then again it is your business.

I would try to find out what the substance was first and go to the police station and speak with the arresting officer, he/she can spread some insight on the situation. I personally would not treat having a joint the same as a bag of meth or heroin in my business decisions, I have had many pot smokers who did a great job for me, decades ago I was one of them. I also do not know what specifically falls under the posession of a controlled substance charge so that would be worth looking into as well..... just make your business decision based on fact and not weather you can immediatly fire an employee because of a law. What is legal sometimes is not the right thing to do..........

When we had our clinic I had a zero tolerance policy. If I wanted to get rid of so,done, I would start doing urine drug screens in the morning. The person I suspected was the last one at 5pm. If they wanted to dispute the results, they had to have a chain of custody urine drug screen done that day at their expense. About $75 and about 70 miles away and they close at 5. Never had anyone dispute it. I did fire one girl one time and had to pay unemployment. It was worth it.

If we suspect an employee is on drugs, they are given the choice of being tested or being fired. If a person tests positive they are given the choice of company paid rehab or being fired.

WildBill wrote:I am going to be contrary here, but she was arrested, but has not been adjudicated.
I don't think that she has any obligation to tell the company that she was arrested.
If she possesses or uses at work that is a different matter.
Also you can't discriminate based on age.....

I agree with WildBill. Furthermore, I can't help but wonder what dog the OP has in this hunt?

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am going to be contrary here, but she was arrested, but has not been adjudicated.
I don't think that she has any obligation to tell the company that she was arrested.
If she possesses or uses at work that is a different matter.
Also you can't discriminate based on age.....

I agree with WildBill. Furthermore, I can't help but wonder what dog the OP has in this hunt?

Actually you can discriminate in employment based on age, but not against someone older than 40.

rotor wrote:Don't give a reason. Just fire her.

This. She was arrested, not convicted. Don't mention the drugs or arrest. No upside to that, lots of downside.

koine2002 wrote:You've got to be sure your t's are crossed and your i's are dotted when it comes to unemployment compensation as an employer.

And as an employee. A lot of employers will make a formerly good employee sound like Attila the Hun in order to avoid paying the unemployment compensation.

I called a HR specialist who will come in and do the actual firing. She has experience with this sort of thing, and said an arrest like that would warrant a termination. There were some other charges involved in the arrest, not just possession, which leads me to think this employee could potentially cause a big scene at the best case, and be physically combative at the worst case.

I have had experience with people like this before when I lived in Kingwood, TX. My next-door neighbor had a stripper daughter who was into drugs and hanging out with "bad boys" - well those "bad boys" include Aryan Brotherhood in Porter, TX. This employee also has a boyfriend that we don't know anything about. This employee really reminds me of that stripper daughter. Rough-around-the-edges, chain-smoking White girls who reek of cigarettes and have bad teeth. I also worry about retribution from her friends.

As for my role in all this, I am the general manager for the office.

bblhd672 wrote:

koine2002 wrote:You've got to be sure your t's are crossed and your i's are dotted when it comes to unemployment compensation as an employer.

And as an employee. A lot of employers will make a formerly good employee sound like Attila the Hun in order to avoid paying the unemployment compensation.

No they don't.

chamberc wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

koine2002 wrote:You've got to be sure your t's are crossed and your i's are dotted when it comes to unemployment compensation as an employer.

And as an employee. A lot of employers will make a formerly good employee sound like Attila the Hun in order to avoid paying the unemployment compensation.

No they don't.

Yes, some do. Whether it is "a lot" may be debatable and may also depend on the lens through which you are viewing this issue. As an employer, just be lucky that your employee isn't in Europe. And pay the UC unless you have a valid and supportable reason for the firing. Suspected drug use alone isn't such a reason unless you have something specific in your employee handbook / policy that covers this.

Also, I would agree with a previous poster. If the use of certain drugs is something you cannot tolerate in an employee, then institute pre-employment screening for those drugs along with ongoing random testing, and document everything clearly in the employee handbook.

Okay I just got off the phone with the LE agency who arrested her. They said she has a lengthy arrest record with them alone for the last 7 years. Some of the arrests are for driving without a license, criminal mischief, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with bodily injury. Wow.

And the drug she was arrested for a few days ago is in the penalty group of hard drugs - cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.

What the heck is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?