Yes. If you list any doctor prescribed prescriptions on the drug test you won't be held responsible FOR THEM. If you've been prescribed any narcotic pain medication you might need to show the prescription to the drug testing company. Absolutely, yes. I am not an attorney but I do not believe worker's compensation status has any bearing on drug testing policies. Employment is usually an "AT WILL" agreement, meaning the employer can change their policies anytime they wish and if you refuse to abide by those policies you can quit or be terminated. An employer who is a private company has the right to implement drug testing at any time. They have the right to test every employee, random employees, or employee for whom they have reasonable suspicion to test. They also have the right to terminate any employee who refuses to take a drug test when requested to do so. I have fired 1 person for refusal to test and 1 person for positive test. Both individuals attempted to get unemployment and lost. They appealed and lost again. There is no reason I can think of that being on light duty under worker's compensation would somehow make an employee ineligible for drug testing or indicate discrimination.
Yes.
Inventions developed by employee, if made during the course of the employee's normal duties generally belong to the employer.
Can the employee perform the duties of the first job? If not the employer has a right to have the job he needs done.
An "employee" can be anyone who works for an employer and who receives wages for payment for their work. A "contract worker" can be, but not necessarily is, someone who's duties are set out in an agreement between them and the employer that calls for that individual to perform certain duties or obtain certain results that were set out in that contract. There is no real legal definition of an "employee" and indeed the contract worker can be considered an "employee" of the company that hires them UNLESS they are Independent Contractors who actually work for themselves and hire themselves out to companies for certain duties.
No, your employer must take other facts into consideration. If the employee is absent on an ongoing basis and not able to perform their duties and in addition is older, then the employer may have reasons to dismiss the employee. It would have nothing to do with age.
The simplest answer might be in this short (and simple) example - - If an employer has an employee and knows, or has reason to know, or SHOULD know, that the employee is not doing something correctly, or carrying out his duties properly, or fails to properly supervise the employee in the performance of their duty, then the employer becomes partially responsible for the employee's actions (or non-actions) in performing the assigned duties of their job.
No, not general "health". Employers can evaluate each employee's ability to perform job duties the employer calls essential.
A contract of employment is a document which describes the employer and employee agreement. The document contains the duties to be done over a certain duration and the amount of remuneration to be expected.
No. Perform is to do, verify is to confirm. For example in the work place the employer may need to verify that an employee has performed her/his duties satisfactorily.
A company is not liable for employees doing stuff outside the scope of their assigned duties that does not further the employer's interests. An employer has no duty to prevent an employee from being a fool at work.
The precise duties of the employee will vary to some extent in line with the title given, but perhaps more importantly in line with the requirements of the individual employer.
A quality employee is one who obeys their employers rules and does their best to complete all of the job duties they were assigned. They will also talk good about their employer.
To employ a person to perform duties specified by the employer.