Is it legal to discriminate due to the medicine used to treat a medical condition?Is it legal to discriminate in employment based on needing future sponsorship?Legal to treat customers differently based on where they live?What exactly is a “major medical condition”?Is it legal in California to require extra behavior/communication from a single employee?Is it legal for a bank to discriminate against someone by the services they offer based upon their marital status?In UK, can religious institutions discriminate against the sexual orientation of their own clergy?“due process” hearing concerning returning to work after medical leaveIs there a legal definition of race in the US?How does the US legal system treat car accidents with pedestrian casualties?What questions can be asked in interview? Can questions that can be used to illegally discriminate be asked?

How can I raise concerns with a new DM about XP splitting?

Is a naturally all "male" species possible?

Superhero words!

How to check participants in at events?

Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?

I2C signal and power over long range (10meter cable)

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Reply ‘no position’ while the job posting is still there (‘HiWi’ position in Germany)

What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?

Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?

Giant Toughroad SLR 2 for 200 miles in two days, will it make it?

Freedom of speech and where it applies

Installing PowerShell on 32-bit Kali OS fails

Adding empty element to declared container without declaring type of element

Is infinity mathematically observable?

What if somebody invests in my application?

Can a controlled ghast be a leader of a pack of ghouls?

What is Sitecore Managed Cloud?

Why are all the doors on Ferenginar (the Ferengi home world) far shorter than the average Ferengi?

How to interpret the phrase "t’en a fait voir à toi"?

Is there enough fresh water in the world to eradicate the drinking water crisis?

Female=gender counterpart?

Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?

word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome



Is it legal to discriminate due to the medicine used to treat a medical condition?


Is it legal to discriminate in employment based on needing future sponsorship?Legal to treat customers differently based on where they live?What exactly is a “major medical condition”?Is it legal in California to require extra behavior/communication from a single employee?Is it legal for a bank to discriminate against someone by the services they offer based upon their marital status?In UK, can religious institutions discriminate against the sexual orientation of their own clergy?“due process” hearing concerning returning to work after medical leaveIs there a legal definition of race in the US?How does the US legal system treat car accidents with pedestrian casualties?What questions can be asked in interview? Can questions that can be used to illegally discriminate be asked?













1















I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;



- Must be a U.S. citizen.
- Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
- Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
- Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
- Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
- Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
- No use of marijuana within the last three years.
- No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
- No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
- No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.

- Must never have been convicted of a felony.
- Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
- Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)


Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.



Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.



  • Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?

  • If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?









share|improve this question




























    1















    I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;



    - Must be a U.S. citizen.
    - Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
    - Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
    - Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
    - Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
    - Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
    - No use of marijuana within the last three years.
    - No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
    - No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
    - No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.

    - Must never have been convicted of a felony.
    - Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
    - Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)


    Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.



    Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.



    • Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?

    • If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?









    share|improve this question


























      1












      1








      1








      I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;



      - Must be a U.S. citizen.
      - Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
      - Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
      - Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
      - Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
      - Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
      - No use of marijuana within the last three years.
      - No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
      - No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
      - No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.

      - Must never have been convicted of a felony.
      - Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
      - Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)


      Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.



      Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.



      • Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?

      • If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?









      share|improve this question
















      I will present two different scenarios. Lets say Bob has PTSD from his time in the military. He wants to become an FBI agent. Here are the following requirements from the FBI to qualify;



      - Must be a U.S. citizen.
      - Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance.
      - Must complete form FD-887, Request for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
      - Must pass an FBI polygraph examination.
      - Must pass an FBI-administered urinalysis drug test.
      - Must be in compliance with the FBI Employment Drug Policy:
      - No use of marijuana within the last three years.
      - No use of any other illegal drug in the past 10 years.
      - No selling, distributing, manufacturing or transporting of any illegal drugs.
      - No use of a prescription drug or a legally obtainable substance in a manner for which it was not intended within the last three years.

      - Must never have been convicted of a felony.
      - Must not be in default on a student loan insured by the U.S. government.
      - Must be registered with the Selective Service System (males only, exceptions apply)


      Scenario 1) Bob is prescribed a controlled narcotic for his PTSD condition.



      Scenario 2) Bob is prescribed medical marijuana for his PTSD condition.



      • Is it legal to discriminate employment based off prescribed medicine in either situation?

      • If the employer wasn't the FBI, does it change the right to discriminate?






      united-states employment discrimination






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 3 hours ago







      Digital fire

















      asked 4 hours ago









      Digital fireDigital fire

      1,75411133




      1,75411133




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).



          The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.



          2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.



          In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.



          It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.






          share|improve this answer
























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "617"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38419%2fis-it-legal-to-discriminate-due-to-the-medicine-used-to-treat-a-medical-conditio%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4














            1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).



            The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.



            2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.



            In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.



            It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.






            share|improve this answer





























              4














              1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).



              The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.



              2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.



              In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.



              It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.






              share|improve this answer



























                4












                4








                4







                1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).



                The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.



                2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.



                In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.



                It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.






                share|improve this answer















                1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job).



                The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place.



                2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment.



                In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable.



                It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 3 hours ago

























                answered 3 hours ago









                ohwillekeohwilleke

                51.2k259131




                51.2k259131



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38419%2fis-it-legal-to-discriminate-due-to-the-medicine-used-to-treat-a-medical-conditio%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Disable / Remove link to Product Items in Cart Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How can I limit products that can be bought / added to cart?Remove item from cartHide “Add to Cart” button if specific products are already in cart“Prettifying” the custom options in cart pageCreate link in cart sidebar to view all added items After limit reachedLink products together in checkout/cartHow to Get product from cart and add it againHide action-edit on cart page if simple productRemoving Cart items - ObserverRemove wishlist items when added to cart

                    Helsingin valtaus Sisällysluettelo Taustaa | Yleistä sotatoimista | Osapuolet | Taistelut Helsingin ympäristössä | Punaisten antautumissuunnitelma | Taistelujen kulku Helsingissä | Valtauksen jälkeen | Tappiot | Muistaminen | Kirjallisuutta | Lähteet | Aiheesta muualla | NavigointivalikkoTeoksen verkkoversioTeoksen verkkoversioGoogle BooksSisällissota Helsingissä päättyi tasan 95 vuotta sittenSaksalaisten ylivoima jyräsi punaisen HelsinginSuomalaiset kuvaavat sotien jälkiä kaupungeissa – katso kuvat ja tarinat tutuilta kulmiltaHelsingin valtaus 90 vuotta sittenSaksalaiset valtasivat HelsinginHyökkäys HelsinkiinHelsingin valtaus 12.–13.4. 1918Saksalaiset käyttivät ihmiskilpiä Helsingin valtauksessa 1918Teoksen verkkoversioTeoksen verkkoversioSaksalaiset hyökkäävät Etelä-SuomeenTaistelut LeppävaarassaSotilaat ja taistelutLeppävaara 1918 huhtikuussa. KapinatarinaHelsingin taistelut 1918Saksalaisten voitonparaati HelsingissäHelsingin valtausta juhlittiinSaksalaisten Helsinki vuonna 1918Helsingin taistelussa kaatuneet valkokaartilaisetHelsinkiin haudatut taisteluissa kaatuneet punaiset12.4.1918 Helsingin valtauksessa saksalaiset apujoukot vapauttavat kaupunginVapaussodan muistomerkkejä Helsingissä ja pääkaupunkiseudullaCrescendo / Vuoden 1918 Kansalaissodan uhrien muistomerkkim

                    Adjektiivitarina Tarinan tekeminen | Esimerkki: ennen | Esimerkki: jälkeen | Navigointivalikko