The Iowa Supreme Court recently clarified that a compliant random drug testing program under Iowa law requires excluding those who are not scheduled to work the day of the testing from the pool of employees who could be selected. Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc. d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines et ano., No. 22-1599
Drug and Alcohol Testing
DOT Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Rates for 2025
The Department of Transportation’s operating agencies have announced their random drug and alcohol testing rates for 2025. The rates are the same as 2024, except that PHMSA has increased its random drug testing rate to 50%.
Agency | 2025 Random Drug Testing Rate | 2025 Random Alcohol Testing Rate |
Federal Aviation Administration | 25% | 10% |
Federal Motor |
Minnesota Will Allow Oral Fluid Testing For Drugs, Cannabis and Alcohol
Minnesota will amend its drug testing law to permit oral fluid testing for drugs, cannabis and alcohol, effective August 1, 2024.
The Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“DATWA”) currently requires employers who conduct drug and alcohol testing to use specific certified laboratories and to permit confirmatory re-testing after an applicant or employee…
Department of Justice Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Reschedule Marijuana to Schedule III
The Department of Justice (DOJ) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024. If the rule is finalized, marijuana would be considered a drug with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological…
Iowa Employers Must Ensure Strict Adherence to State’s Drug Testing Law
A recent Iowa court decision highlights the risks to employers who do not strictly comply with all facets of the state’s drug testing law, Iowa Code Section 730.5, which is one of the nation’s most technical drug testing laws. Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc. d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines et ano., No. 22-1599…
What New York Employers Need to Know About Marijuana Two Years After Legalization
It’s been two years since the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act legalized marijuana in New York State on March 31, 2021 and prohibited employers from drug testing for marijuana (for tests that are not federally-mandated). Because many employers still are confused about what New York law requires, here is a recap:
All Off-Duty Use of …
Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act Did Not Protect Employee Who Was Terminated for Positive Marijuana Test Result
A federal court in Pennsylvania granted an employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (PMMA) claim because he could not show that his termination was premised solely on his status as a certified user of medical marijuana. Matthew Reynolds v. Willert Mfg. Co., LLC, No. 5:21-cv-01208 (E.D. Pa.…
Court Upholds Termination of Employee Who Used Prescription Medication That Was Prescribed 5 Years Earlier
A federal court in Indiana dismissed the disability discrimination and retaliation claims of a DOT-regulated driver who failed a random drug test due to prescription opioid use, holding that he did not sufficiently adhere to the employer’s policy or DOT regulations when he failed to produce a Safety Concern Letter from the prescribing physician. Ross…
Montana Will Protect Off-Duty Use of Marijuana Next Year
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed legislation on May 18, 2021 that will provide protections for off-duty use of marijuana starting on January 1, 2022.
Montana citizens voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2020. The ballot initiative did not provide employment-related protections and focused on employer restrictions of on-duty use of the drug. The newly-signed…
California Court Upholds Employer’s Refusal To Hire Applicant Who Failed Pre-Employment Drug Test Due To Medical Marijuana Use
A federal court in California dismissed the disability discrimination claims of a job applicant who failed a pre-employment drug test due to medical marijuana use, holding that he did not sufficiently prove that he was disabled. More specifically, the court concluded that the applicant’s “subjective belief” that he suffered from “chronic back pain” was insufficient…