Defending 'Impaired' Accusation

[Beta4Change]

If a company has a drugs and alcohol policy that refers to 'impaired'
function, how would this judgment stand up in court?

'Impaired' would seem to be a qualitative or subjective term. Open to
interpretation. Especially if no testing occurred at the time. Surely 'impaired' cannot be proven if subsequently a hair sample were taken.

Is 'impaired' legally defined in a way that can be assessed in a working
environment?

Many thanks in advance for your opinions.

What do you mean?

They will fire only for "impaired function"?

Is that the policy?

[Beta4Change]

Dear Unregistered,

No, and I'm sorry you gained that impression.

The policy I am refering to does not stipulate testing or testing levels in one of its three tiers of this company's policy. The policy for this tier makes statements as to it being unacceptable for an employee being 'impaired' through drugs or alcohol.

My question is that how is this a defensible stance as it is so subjective as to what is or what is not impairment? Someone could claim that just because they have taken a drink or a small amount of any substance, that they were not impaired.

One persons interpretation of impairment might not be that of someone else. So how is this to be judged?

I hope that clarifies ...

Only blood tests can be non-subjective.

Anythng else is open to a great deal of argument.