$11)$ Chapter $6$: Drug Testing textbook: Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, $7$th Edition, $(2024)$ David J$.$ Walsh.

$$ As the textbook points out, there is no uniform set of rules or laws that apply to employers and the issue of drug testing potential or current employees. There is a list of common state guidelines at the beginning of the chapter, but they are only general guidelines. In many instances, drug testing is not controversial, like when employers indicate very clearly in the job posting that applicants have to pass a drug test. Since the employers are giving fair warning, few people dispute the requirement. Additionally, for jobs that affect public safety, like an air traffic controller, the requirement is not contentious because people understand the policy and think it is fair.

$$ The Massachusetts legislature has not yet passed a law that spells out uniform rules for employer drug testing. For state employees, the issue would be covered in their collective bargaining agreement contract. For private employers, it seems they are free to do as they wish, unless an employee found a basis for a lawsuit or that the testing violated a provision of an employment contract, which would not exist for an employee at will.

$$ Confusing matters is that marijuana is not legal federally, but it is legal in some states, like Massachusetts. What happens if someone flunks a drug test here in Massachusetts because they used marijuana? Can they argue that being rejected for marijuana use isn't fair because it is legal in Massachusetts? Note: the federal government's position is that it won't enforce marijuana laws in state where it is legal.

$3$ cases to guide us: In $2017($Barbuto v$.$ Advantage Sales and Marketing LLC$),$ the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that even though an employer had established a drug$-$free workplace policy, permitting an employee$$s off$-$site use of medical marijuana to treat her Crohn$$s disease may constitute a reasonable accommodation under the state$$s disability discrimination law. In $1994($Webster v$.$ Motorola Inc$),$ the SJC ruled that an employer mandating random drug tests must be weighed on a case$-$by$-$case basis, considering whether an individual employee$$s right to privacy outweighed the employer$$s interests. In $1990($Gauthier v$.$ Police Comm'r of Boston$),$ the SJC found that the firing of a police cadet after a positive drug test was not a violation of privacy because the testing was in the public interest.

A$)$ Please answer the following questions $($A and B$)$: If an individual was one of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, how would the individual rule if an employee at a private accounting firm in Massachusetts was fired because she failed a random drug test due to testing positive for marijuana? B$)$ Why? $(**$One paragraph analysis is sufficient$).$

$12)$ Please answer the question True or False: ADA regulations prohibit employers from firing employees who flunked drug tests if they have ever undergone treatment for drug addiction. $(***$ Please choose if it is True or False$).$