Legal justification for licensure of pharmacy technicians. Mace v. Charleston Area Medical Center.
OBJECTIVE
To review the facts and legal rationale of a lawsuit in which a hospital was held liable for discharging a pharmacy technician from employment.


CONCLUSIONS
The hospital and the pharmacy technician previously had disagreed about several matters. The technician believed he was being discriminated against based on his need to be away from work to serve in the National Guard. On one occasion, the technician reported to work in what appeared to be a drug-impaired state. The technician subsequently was discharged from employment. He sued, contending that the discharge was in retaliation for his asserting his rights as a National Guard member. The technician won the lawsuit.


CONCLUSIONS
Employment law bends over backward to protect employees. When an employee is not licensed, the only effective peer review is within the employment relationship. The public may not be effectively protected from harm that might be caused by employees who are not competent. Strong laws that protect employees restrict the ability of employers to oversee employee conduct. Therefore, for employees whose incompetence may pose a threat to the public, licensure provides a necessary additional level of protection.
Brushwood
D B
DB
College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610.
D004648:Employee Grievances / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004651:Employment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008009:Licensure, Pharmacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010607:Pharmacy Service, Hospital / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010596:Pharmacy Technicians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D011363:Professional Impairment; D015813:Substance Abuse Detection / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014903:West Virginia