Court Opinion

ID: 9756927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:09:43.447983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:33.418253
License: Public Domain

COLLINS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion which further develops the employee oriented position we adopted in Cousins v. Georgia-Pacific, 599 A.2d 73 (Me.1991).
Testing employees in order to detect the usage of controlled substances has become an important feature of employment safety in recent years. Here the employee’s failure of the rehiring drug test constitutes a réfusal to accept suitable employment. Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A, if the employer offers the employee a job “suitable to his physical condition,” the employee must accept it or suffer the penalties of the act. Keene v. Fairchild Co., 593 A.2d 655 (Me.1991). There is no question that the employee wanted to return to work and that she knew she would have to pass a reemployment drug test before she could be reinstated. Nonetheless, she elected to take illegal drugs and those drugs were detected when she was tested. In balancing an employee’s illusory “right” to use illegal drugs against the employer’s rights under section 66-A, it is clear that the public interest is best served by recognizing the statutory rights of the employer and, thus, also serving the common sense policy of ensuring safety in the workplace. Compare the employee’s refusal to take advantage of reasonable medical treatment, e.g., Gordon v. Maine Reduction Co., Inc., 358 A.2d 544, 548 (Me.1976); the employee’s intentional or reckless injury of himself, e.g., Richardson v. Robbins Lumber, Inc., 379 A.2d 380 (Me.1977); the employee’s refusal to comply with the terms of an approved rehabilitation plan, 39 M.R.S.A. § 87(4); and criminal acts by an employee that result in incarceration, 39 M.R.S.A. § 102-A.
The employee’s failure of the re-employment drug screening test constitutes a refusal to accept employment. The employer should be entitled to reduce compensation benefits by the amount the employee would have received if she had returned to work.