A particular question regarding a blackout policy
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 2
A particular question regarding a blackout policy
I am a person who is very interest in law and hope someday to become a lawyer. I'm currently staying in a sober living home and a particular policy that was just instituted to our house rubs me as not quite right.
I understand having a blackout period but recently our residential director visited and stated to us that if any paraphernalia was found in the house and it was unknown who it belonged to if no one claimed it they would put everyone back on blackout as a group punishment. A fellow member of the community asked "If I get the job I've applied for, and someone else leaves something out that they weren't supposed to have, you're telling me I can't go to work because of that?" And the director replied "Yes."
I am wondering about the legality of this policy, which would be probably handled by civil case law. But I have found no specific similar situation. However the idea that one could hindered from going to work due to consequences placed on them due to an unknown party. Strikes me as wrong. Preexisting responsibilities such as employment or attendance at scheduled appointments should not be potentially affected by the actions of an unrelated party living in the house. For many this is the only place they have to go and they are getting on their feet through positive routines and employment. To interrupt this by punishment for breaking the blackout period even to go to work due to actions of an unknown person in the house hinders them, and a person who is working would never know when they may have to call out due to this rule or even how long they would have to call out for
I am seeking to file a grievance regarding this.
has anyone else experienced a similar situation or know any particular legal statutes or cases that would apply to this situation.
I understand having a blackout period but recently our residential director visited and stated to us that if any paraphernalia was found in the house and it was unknown who it belonged to if no one claimed it they would put everyone back on blackout as a group punishment. A fellow member of the community asked "If I get the job I've applied for, and someone else leaves something out that they weren't supposed to have, you're telling me I can't go to work because of that?" And the director replied "Yes."
I am wondering about the legality of this policy, which would be probably handled by civil case law. But I have found no specific similar situation. However the idea that one could hindered from going to work due to consequences placed on them due to an unknown party. Strikes me as wrong. Preexisting responsibilities such as employment or attendance at scheduled appointments should not be potentially affected by the actions of an unrelated party living in the house. For many this is the only place they have to go and they are getting on their feet through positive routines and employment. To interrupt this by punishment for breaking the blackout period even to go to work due to actions of an unknown person in the house hinders them, and a person who is working would never know when they may have to call out due to this rule or even how long they would have to call out for
I am seeking to file a grievance regarding this.
has anyone else experienced a similar situation or know any particular legal statutes or cases that would apply to this situation.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 775
Not a lawyer either but I would think drug tests would be in order before making someone who is really trying lose a job because someone they maybe dont even know is using. Yes I would challenge that rule.
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 79
I've never been in a Sober Living facility, but if you are there voluntarily then I will assume you have agreed to whatever rules they institute, and can leave any time you wish. I'm not suggesting that you leave, just that if it *is* voluntary, then you are not technically subject to the Blackout b/c you *can* leave. I guess maybe I don't have enough information or understanding?
Maybe this policy was instituted in an effort to get the folks living together to get on the "same page" and not have banned materials in the home? Talk and work among each other to work a more Honest Program, etc.
Maybe it was done b/c there is a known issue and they want someone to "snitch"?
I hope you find some peace and resolution with this situation, best of luck.
Maybe this policy was instituted in an effort to get the folks living together to get on the "same page" and not have banned materials in the home? Talk and work among each other to work a more Honest Program, etc.
Maybe it was done b/c there is a known issue and they want someone to "snitch"?
I hope you find some peace and resolution with this situation, best of luck.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: I'm sitting right here ...
Posts: 918
Hello there,
I used to be the President of a Sober Living House in Washington state. If that happened in our house, the house members would have to come to a consensus on how to handle the situation, and everyone would be drug tested, including me. But no one would be denied permission to go to work. That's just ridiculous. Rent has to be paid. Bills have to be paid. Money has to come into the house somehow. I might require proof of hours worked or something to validate whereabouts, but telling someone they can't go to work would never happen.
I used to be the President of a Sober Living House in Washington state. If that happened in our house, the house members would have to come to a consensus on how to handle the situation, and everyone would be drug tested, including me. But no one would be denied permission to go to work. That's just ridiculous. Rent has to be paid. Bills have to be paid. Money has to come into the house somehow. I might require proof of hours worked or something to validate whereabouts, but telling someone they can't go to work would never happen.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
