Where an employer’s policy provided for random drug screens as well as those based on reasonable suspicion, a claimant who was denied benefits based on his misconduct could not argued that the employer failed to establish a reasonable suspicion for requiring him to submit to a drug screen, and the claimant’s testimony that he was required to urinate in front of a female worker was not credible, so the commission did not err in finding that the employer discharged the clamant for misconduct connected with work.
Judgment is affirmed.
Dortch v. Zoltek Corporation (MLW No. 69296/Case No. ED103757 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Gaertner Jr., J.) Appealed from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Elbert A. Walton Jr. for appellant) (Thomas E. Berry Jr., David A. Martin and Bart A. Matanic for respondent).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)