[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-298247-105":59,"doc-detail-298247-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","0117-aztb-claims-go-up-in-smoke-because-of-positive-drug-test","0117-AZTB - Claims go up in smoke because of positive drug test","","Arizona federal court judgment rejected a Native American employee’s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 race and national origin discrimination claims after she tested positive for marijuana in a random drug test. The county enforced a zero-tolerance, uniformly applied policy for safety-sensitive positions where positive drug results “may be immediately dismissed.” The employee failed to show similarly situated non-Native employees were treated more favorably, and the employer demonstrated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/0117-aztb-claims-go-up-in-smoke-because-of-positive-drug-test/298247/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/0117-aztb-claims-go-up-in-smoke-because-of-positive-drug-test/298247.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Blitz","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-13","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why was the employee’s employment terminated?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"Her employment was terminated after a random drug test showed she tested positive for marijuana while in a safety-sensitive position, and she ultimately admitted illegal marijuana use.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the employee need to prove for discrimination claims?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"She had to show she belonged to a protected class, was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and that similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How did the county defeat the “treated more favorably” argument?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The county demonstrated that identified coworkers either had never tested positive or were also fired after positive tests, so the employee could not show a comparator group was treated more favorably.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},298247,1790371065,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":14,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":24,"preview_page_count":4},24464137899374,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","January 2017  \nClaims go up in smoke because of positive drug test  \nby Jodi R. Bohr  \nTiffany & Bosco, P.A.  \nWhile an employee had high expectations that she would advance her race and national origin discrimination claims against her former employer, an Arizona federal court was blunt when it entered judgment against the Native American woman's claims and \"reefered\" her case to the clerk for closure. (OK, I'm done now.)  \nThe court ruled that the employer terminated her employment after she tested positive for marijuana use following a random drug test, and she failed to demonstrate any discriminatory animus as a basis for her discharge. Although the employee is a member of a protected class, was qualified for her position, and experienced an adverse employment action, she was just blowing smoke because she offered no evidence to support her contention that similarly situated non-Native American employees tested positive for drugs but weren't discharged.(OK, I really am done now, I promise.)  \nDrug-testing policy for safety-sensitive positions  \nVina Yazzie worked for Mohave County's Public Works Department (PWD) for more than 17 years. As a term of her employment, she was required to maintain a commercial driver's license (CDL) . Employees at the PWD who maintain a CDL or operate commercial vehicles are considered to have safety-sensitive positions and are therefore subject to random drug testing.  \nThe county maintains policies governing discipline of employees who test positive for drugs or alcohol while they're on duty. The policy expressly provides that employees in safety-sensitive positions who test positive for drugs while they're on duty \"may be immediately dismissed.\" Since January 2010, all 10 PWD employees in safety-sensitive positions who  \ntested positive for alcohol or drugs were discharged or resigned in lieu of being fired.  \nThe county conducts regular training sessions on its drug and alcohol policy. Yazzie attended a training session on July 15, 2013. During the training session, employees were encouraged to ask questions to fully understand the policy. A supervisor also discussed a draft zero-tolerance drug-use policy that was awaiting approval by the board of supervisors. At the training, Yazzie was reminded that the penalty under county policy is discharge for a failed drug test.  \nYazzie was randomly selected for a drug screening and sent to Kingman Regional Medical Center for the test. She was notified that she had tested positive. She originally claimed it was a false positive because she had taken a prescription drug. She was placed on administrative leave and informed that she could have the sample retested, which she declined to do. She ultimately admitted to illegal marijuana use, and her employment was terminated.  \nLitigation ensues  \nYazzie sued the county and several of her supervisors for race and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (She filed other claims that were dismissed earlier in the case.) Specifically, she alleged that \"the County did not terminate other similarly situated non-NativeAmerican employees who violated [its] Drug and Alcohol Policies.\"  \nAs a former employee alleging unlawful race and national origin discrimination against the county, Yazzie was required to show that (1) she belongs toa protected class,(2) she was qualified for her position,(3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) similarly situated  \nindividuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably. The county didn't dispute the first three elements because (1) Yazzie is Native American,(2) she had received satisfactory feedback from supervisors on her annual reviews, and (3) her employment was terminated. However, the county disputed the final element and asked that the court dismiss her claims. The county also argued that it should win because it had a legitimate reason for terminating her employment.  \nTreated ","cbCairLXHOTlT0Bd","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairLXHOTlT0Bd","pdf",199079,"English","# Drug-testing policy for safety-sensitive positions\n## Litigation ensues\n## Treated more favorably?\n## Takeaway","[{\"question\":\"Why was the employee’s employment terminated?\",\"answer\":\"Her employment was terminated after a random drug test showed she tested positive for marijuana while in a safety-sensitive position, and she ultimately admitted illegal marijuana use.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the employee need to prove for discrimination claims?\",\"answer\":\"She had to show she belonged to a protected class, was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and that similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the county defeat the “treated more favorably” argument?\",\"answer\":\"The county demonstrated that identified coworkers either had never tested positive or were also fired after positive tests, so the employee could not show a comparator group was treated more favorably.\"}]","0117-AZTB - Claims go up in smoke because of positive drug test | PDF",1789753229]