0020 5493 40
0020 5493 40 (Jan. 16, 2017) – Bus driver, who reported for work 5 hours after taking Percocet for back pain rather than call in sick, was disqualified under § 25(e)(2), after his discharge for driving under the influence of a narcotic. While serving his unpaid 10-week disciplinary suspension, the claimant was entitled to benefits under § 25(f) and 430 CMR 4.04(4), because he did not have a right to return to work at the end of the suspension period.
0019 4525 76
0019 4525 76 (Mar. 30, 2017) – Claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits after being fired for refusing to take a drug test. His reason for refusing was more in furtherance of his own privacy interest than in wilful disregard of the employer's relatively speculative concern about confirming that the claimant was "clean." Moreover, the employer's reasons for asking for the test—that the claimant's driving duties were about to increase and another driver had just failed a drug test—were not included in its drug test policy.
0017 2240 72
0017 2240 72 (Sept. 28, 2016) – Notwithstanding the provisions of G.L. c. 94C, § 32L, the claimant commercial truck driver is disqualified from benefits under Olmeda, because he ingested marijuana even though he knew he was subject to random DOT drug testing and would lose his CDL and ability to perform his job if he failed such test. He was at fault for his own separation.
0018 3168 60
0018 3168 60 (July 29, 2016) – Claimant, who tested positive for marijuana, is not disqualified from receiving benefits in light of G.L. c. 93, § 32L. She was not under the influence of drugs while working, she was injured accidentally performing her job duties, and she was not subject to federal Department of Transportation rules and regulations.
BR-108790-A
BR-108790-A (July 31, 2009) – Denied benefits to RN, who was fired for repeatedly stealing for his own use controlled substances prescribed to patients in the hospital where he worked. Board distinguished this misconduct from that attributable to alcoholism. This case concerns drugs which may not be legally possessed without proper medical authorization. Claimant's fear of being discharged for reporting his addictive problems showed that he knew what he was doing and was aware of the risk.