Minnesota has a uniquely complicated statute governing drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. Minn. Stat. Section 181.950-957.  The statute can be a surprise for out of state employers with employees in Minnesota, as well as Minnesota-based companies. And non-compliance can be expensive. Employees who are tested in violation of the statutory requirements can potentially

Considering when a drug test by a public employer may constitute an “unreasonable” search for Fourth Amendment purposes, a U.S. District Court in Florida also has shed light on private sector substance abuse testing that could lack “reasonable suspicion” or “cause.”  There was no factual record on which the court relied.  Hudson v. City of

Quest Diagnostics’ 25th Anniversary Drug Testing Index reports a deep drop in drug use among American workers in the quarter century the Index has been published.  Based on over 125 urinalysis drug tests, the laboratory network and provider of diagnostic information said use had plummeted 75% since its data assessment initiative began shortly after

Employers who desire to test their employees, particularly when conducting on-site testing using specimens other than urine, should consider the New York Court of Appeals’ 4-3 decision allowing subjects of drug tests to sue laboratories for “negligent testing.” Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 6597 (Oct. 10, 2013), illustrates risks

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a claim for wrongful discharge under Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“DATWA”) is subject to a six year statute of limitations.  Because DATWA, codified at Minn. Stat. Section 181.951 et seq., does not contain an explicit limitations provision, the applicable limitations period has long

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), an independent federal agency, known for investigating major railroad, aviation and highway accidents and with responsibility for making  recommendations aimed at preventing  accidents, has released 19 recommendations  to “eliminate” alcohol-impaired driving accidents.  The recommendations include the implementation of stronger laws, swifter enforcement and the use of new technology –

In Ralphs Grocery Co., NLRB ALJ, No. 21-CA-39867, 4/30/13, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge held Ralphs Grocery Co. (“Ralphs”) committed an unfair labor practice by terminating an employee, Razi, who refused to submit to a drug and alcohol test until the employee had an opportunity to consult with his union representative.