My employer began requiring drug testing whenever an injury occurs that requires a doctor's visit and only provided 2 days notice before enforcement. Would denial of medical coverage count as ex post facto if the positive result was due to drugs taken before the policy was even announced?
Your question does not make any sense. Try re-posting and leave out the ex post facto doctrine; just lay out the facts and ask what you need to know. I think you are mixed up about what is ex post facto law and that is causing your question to not be understandable.
If you were informed of the policy before the testing then there is no violation of your rights. You knew of the change in the company policy and had the right to resign if you did not like the new policy. Then, you had the right to reject the testing, which would likely have resulted in your termination, which the employer had a right to do.
You did not have the right to use drugs before the testing so the change in policy only affected your privacy rights with regard to the drug testing. The fact the employer learned of your drug use and terminated you is simply something you should have expected knowing you might be tested, and the knowing you had been sent for testing.
I would note that I am assuming you were tested in compliance with the new policy, meaning you were tested because you were involved in a workplace injury that required a doctor's visit. That is an acceptable workplace policy. However, if they did not follow their own policy and they tested you without the requisite injury, there might be an argument for invasion of privacy. Even if that were the case, they can still fire you.
Good luck to you.
Ms. McCall and Mr. Pedersen have given you two good answers. I write to explain a little more about basic employment law; knowing the law may help you stay out of trouble in the future.
Employees and job applicants have very few employment rights, and employers have a lot of leeway in how they choose to run their businesses. In general, an employer can be unfair, obnoxious or bad at management. And an employer can make decisions based on faulty or inaccurate information. An employer has no obligation to warn an employee that he or she is not performing as the employer wants. It’s not a level playing field. An employer hires employees to provide work for its benefit, not for the benefit of the employees. Don't expect the employer to take care of its employees; it doesn’t have to and it rarely does.
There are some limitations on what an employer can do, mostly in the areas of public policy (such as discrimination law or whistle blowing), contract law, union-employer labor relations, and constitutional due process for government employees. Please see my guide to at-will employment in California which should help you understand employment rights: http://www.attorneyqna.com/legal-guides/ugc/an-overview-of-at-will-employment-all-states. After you take a look at the guide, you may be able to identify actions or behavior that fits one of the categories that allows for legal action. If so, an experienced plaintiffs employment attorney may be helpful.
Employment rights come from the state and federal legislatures. One of the best things people can do to improve their employment rights is vote for candidates with a good record on pro-employee, anti-corporate legislation. Another way to protect employment rights is to form or affiliate with a union, or participate in a union already in place.
I hope you can resolve your situation and wish you the best.
