I think refusal is a bad word for this situation, how about unable to perform? I looked up the definition for refusal, and it seems to imply will, although I'm sure there is a def. somewhere that says will doesn't matter. Doesn't seem like there was intent here. I don't know if it matters I'm just stating a possible fact. Plus the spirit of the procedure seems to imply you are in control off giving a sample, and obviously in this situ may not be the case. A blood test would have cleared things up. As a matter of fact if this would have happened to me I WOULD have gotten a blood test myself at the earliest possible chance. Graphic seems to be saying that ANY company no matter how small or large and what their reputation has complete omnipotence over you in this situation? That sucks!!!
I wouldn't say a company controls your fate simply by what they say or report back but it definitely can effect you. I mean one of the MAIN questions they ask on the PHQ (and they also ask when calling references/jobs) is have you ever refused to take a drug/alcohol test. In this instance he/she refused, no matter how we want to word it or if it was his intention that is how the company lists the termination. Nowadays most companies don't even give out any information regarding a persons employment aside from the dates they were employed and their position --- mostly for legal reasons. So when a background screener gets an anomaly such as this it can raise red flags pretty quick. There really is no way for us to know the whole story because we will never know what the former job reported, if anything. Any information found during the investigation is also not divulged (as in names, what company said what.. etc)
The NRC basically follows DOT drug testing guidelines. If it was done at a lab they are required to follow those guidelines. If it's a mom and pop shop that does their own drug testing on the spot then they don't fall under those guidelines. I won't even get into all the DOT/HHS guidelines for testing. To me, the previous company saying he refused to test is the issue and why he was denied.
Regardless, his appeal has already been used and it was denied also. It is only a 1 year denial which could easily have been 3. Obviously if he reapplies again this situation has already been adjudicated (1 year denial) and won't give him problems going forward, as long as he can pee in the cup.
I don't know what the procedure Entergy is referring to since it is internal but it's just a form letter so it is more than likely their FFD procedure. I would still contact the previous job. I say if this story is accurate the only one that discriminated against him is the former company.
A year will fly by though. Just wait it out and you'll be fine. I know that's not the favorable answer but you really have no recourse.
Good luck