Articles

Age discrimination

May, 2016

JURY AWARDS NEW HAVEN POLICE RECRUIT

IN AGE DISCRIMINATION CASE AGAINST CITY

 A federal jury has awarded a former City of New Haven police recruit $64,047 in back pay in his age discrimination case against the City.  Ronald Gaul v. City of New Haven and Officer Robert Strickland.

 Gaul, who was 51 at the time, was accepted as a New Haven police recruit on May 11, 2012.  As a probationary employee, he was required to complete seven months of training at the New Haven Police Academy.

Gaul claimed that during his training, the training officer, Robert Strickland, made the following comments:  “Faster old man, faster old man;” “Come on, old man, you are going to quit.  This is a young man’s show, you don’t belong here;” Go home, old man, you are not going to make it.”

Gaul also claimed that every other recruit except him were allowed to take a break and he was refused water even though temperatures were in the upper 80’s.  He developed heat exhaustion and his doctor restricted his physical training.  He claimed that he was treated differently than others who developed injuries.

Gaul was terminated in August, 2012.  The reason given was that he had accumulated too many absences from training.

At trial, the jury found that the City was liable for age discrimination.

ZERO TOLERANCE DRUG POLICIES MAY NEED TO  BE REVISED BASED UPON LEGALIZED MARIJUANA USE

The Society for Human Resource Management reports that employers in states that have legalized marijuana may want to consider changing their drug policy from a zero-tolerance standard to a no-impairment standard, and eliminating random drug testing as a result of state laws legalizing medical marijuana.

Presently, 23 states, the District of Columbia and Guam permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and in some states, for recreational use, as well.

However, marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which provides no exception for medical use.  Additionally, the Americans With Disabilities Act does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use as a reasonable accommodation because an individual with a disability is not entitled to accommodation for the use of drugs considered unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act.  Because of the federal prohibition against marijuana use, the majority of federal and state courts have held that employers may terminate employees who test positive for marijuana—even if the drug is used for medical purposes.

Under a no-impairment policy, an employee would be prohibited from being impaired by marijuana, illegal drugs or alcohol while at work and drug testing would take place only if the employer had a reasonable suspicion that an employee was under the influence of a drug.