Share
The likely reaction to the title of this article would be: well of course they do. Workplace rules of conduct typically prohibit being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and although the condition of alcoholism might be protected as a disability, anti-discrimination law does not protect intoxication on the job.
But the right to complain also includes an employee’s right to refuse to work alongside an intoxicated co-worker when doing so would be unsafe. The case of Algarin v. LB & O, LLC, recently decided in the superior court in Bridgeport, involved an insulation installer who refused to work with an intoxicated employee, and who was fired after arguing with his supervisor about his refusal to work. In his subsequent lawsuit, the fired employee invoked the legal doctrine of wrongful termination in violation of a public policy based on Connecticut General Statute Section 31-49, which requires employers to provide a reasonably safe workplace and “fit and competent persons as his co-laborers.”
Previous posts on this blog have described the use of Section 31-49 in wrongful termination cases [see Another Form of Workplace Harassment, July 17, 2017 and Finding Ways to Sue, January 24, 2017]. Although an old statute (dating from 1902) which has been largely superseded by state and federal OSHA laws which mandate safety standards for all types of work sites, Section 31-49 has been held by the courts to express a public policy in favor of workplace safety. This public policy provides protection from termination for employees, like Mr. Algarin, who refuse to work in unsafe conditions, including where a fellow employee poses a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court in the Algarin case agreed that refusing to work with an intoxicated co-worker at a construction worksite was protected by Section 31-49’s public policy, and denied a preliminary motion to dismiss the case. Employers are well-advised to have a rule against intoxication in the workplace, and to train supervisors to enforce the rule against the intoxicated employee rather than risk defending a claim by a worker who chooses not to work with such an employee.
This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.
About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog
Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.