TexasCHLforum.com

ml1209 wrote:Okay I just got off the phone with the LE agency who arrested her. They said she has a lengthy arrest record with them alone for the last 7 years. Some of the arrests are for driving without a license, criminal mischief, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with bodily injury. Wow.

And the drug she was arrested for a few days ago is in the penalty group of hard drugs - cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.

What the heck is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "not good".

You mention the lengthy arrest record. What about convictions. I agree with the other poster, that if there were convictions for these things, that should have shown up on a basic pre-employment background check. And you likely have your termination cause right there. If she answered "no" to the question about felony convictions and it was a lie.

chamberc wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

koine2002 wrote:You've got to be sure your t's are crossed and your i's are dotted when it comes to unemployment compensation as an employer.

And as an employee. A lot of employers will make a formerly good employee sound like Attila the Hun in order to avoid paying the unemployment compensation.

No they don't.

Yes, some do. Whether it is "a lot" may be debatable and may also depend on the lens through which you are viewing this issue. As an employer, just be lucky that your employee isn't in Europe. And pay the UC unless you have a valid and supportable reason for the firing. Suspected drug use alone isn't such a reason unless you have something specific in your employee handbook / policy that covers this.

Also, I would agree with a previous poster. If the use of certain drugs is something you cannot tolerate in an employee, then institute pre-employment screening for those drugs along with ongoing random testing, and document everything clearly in the employee handbook.