State Drug Laws
Alabama’s Drug-Free Workplace Program is codified under Alabama Code 25-5-330 et seq. Employers who implement a Drug-Free Workplace Program qualify for a 5 percent discount under the employer’s workers’ compensation policy.
Alaska’s law for drug and alcohol testing of employees is codified at Ala Stat 23.10.600 et seq. Employers who comply with the STATUTE are protected from civil liability if they take disciplinary action in GOOD FAITH based on the results of positive tests. However, persons who are injured by a drug or alcohol-impaired employee may not sue the employer for failing to test for drugs or alcohol.
Ariizona’s Rev. Stat. Ann. 23-493 et seq. requires employers to adopt a written policy distributed to every employee who is subject to testing or printed as part of a personnel handbook or manual.
Arkansas has not enacted any laws regarding the testing of employees for drugs or alcohol. The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld dismissals of employees who violate an employer’s substance abuse policy.
Under the California Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990, Cal. Gov. Code 8350 et seq. (modeled after the federal act) … only employers who are awarded contracts or grants from any state agency must certify to the contracting or granting agency that they will provide a drug-free workplace. The contractors must also have a written policy for their employees.
Colorado has not enacted any employment drug or alcohol testing laws. However, the Colorado Supreme Court has upheld testing if the employee’s supervisor had a reasonable suspicion that the employee was either using or was under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol.
Connecticut’s law, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51 et seq., provides express language protecting the privacy of employee testing. Reasonable suspicion is required before an employer may compel testing, and the employer must show that the use was adversely affecting the employee’s job performance.
No specific laws have been enacted.
Employee drug testing is voluntary in Florida. However, Fla. Stat. 440.101 et seq. gives incentives to employers that implement drug-free workplace policies. Florida law parallels federal law on the subject. If a governmental unit receives two or more equal bids for services or goods, preference is given to the business that has implemented a drug-free workplace program. The state also gives a worker’s compensation premium discount to employers who have implemented a drug-free workplace.
Georgia has a Drug-free Workplace Act, Ga. Code 50-24-1. All state contractors holding contracts of at least $25,000 must certify that they will provide a drug-free workplace. If a contractor fails to comply with the Act, the state may suspend payments or terminate the contract, so the contractor has an incentive to comply.
The Idaho Private Employer Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace Act, Idaho Code 72-1701 et seq. provides voluntary drug and alcohol testing guidelines for private employers. If an employer follows the guidelines, employees testing positive for drugs or alcohol will be guilty of misconduct and will be denied unemployment benefits.
Illinois has not enacted its own legislation, but it allows private employers to require all employees to conform to the requirements of the federal Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988.
Indiana has not enacted its own legislation, but it allows private employers to require all employees to conform to the requirements of the federal Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988.
Under Iowa Code 730.5 et seq., random testing is prohibited. An employer may require preemployment drug tests for peace officers or state correctional officers. An employer may require a specific employee to submit to a drug test only if certain conditions are met, as outlined in the statute.
Kansas has not enacted any workplace drug and alcohol testing laws.
Kentucky has no legislation governing employment drug or alcohol testing. However, 702 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:080 requires all school bus drivers working for any county school district in Kentucky to be drug-tested after an accident resulting in bodily injury or $1,000 worth of property damage.
Under Louisiana Rev. Stat. 49:1001 et seq., private employers do not need a written policy to implement a drug testing policy, there need not be reasonable cause to test an employee, and employers need not offer rehabilitation to offenders prior to termination from employment. Same-gender direct observation is permitted in certain circumstances, as where there is reason to believe an employee may alter or substitute urine specimens, etc.
Rev. Stat. 26 -681 et seq., protects the privacy rights of individual employees from undue invasion by employers but permits the use of tests when the employer has a compelling reason to administer them.
Under Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. 17-214, employers may test their employees for drugs and alcohol for any “legitimate business purpose.” However, the statute outlines specific procedural requirements and employee rights in cases where positive results may be used for discipline.
Massachusetts has no specific employment drug and alcohol testing laws.
No specific law, except that under Mich. Comp. Laws 37.1211(a CIVIL RIGHTS law) established employment policies, programs, procedures or work rules regarding the use of alcoholic liquor or the illegal use of drugs will not be considered to violate an individual’s civil rights.
Minnesota was one of the first states to enact employment drug and alcohol testing laws in the country, entitled “Authorized Drug and Alcohol Testing” and codified at Minn. Stat. 181.951 et seq. Employers may not conduct drug and alcohol tests without a written drug and alcohol testing policy. Employers may not require employees or job applicants to undergo drug and alcohol testing on an “arbitrary and capricious basis.”
Under Miss. Code Ann. 71-7-1 et seq, all employers who participate in Mississippi’s workers’ compensation program are required to establish and implement a written drug and alcohol-testing program. That virtually covers all employers.
Missouri’s Drug-Free Public Work Force Act is codified at Mo. Rev. Stat.105.1100 et seq. Only state employees under the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the Missouri state government are subject to the Act. No provisions mandate compliance from private employers.
Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-205 et seq. (“Montana Workforce Drug and Alcohol Testing Act”) requires that any testing of employees by private employers be done in accordance with written policies and procedures established by the employer.
Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1901 et seq. states that no disciplinary or administrative action is allowed unless an initial positive test has been confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry technique. Attempts to alter the results of a drug or alcohol test are punishable as Class I criminal misdemeanors.
No state law regulates private employer drug or alcohol testing. State employees do not include members of the Nevada National Guard or employees of state penal, mental, and correctional institutions.
New Hampshire has not enacted any employment drug or alcohol testing laws.
New Jersey has no express law relating to employment drug or alcohol testing.
New Mexico has no statutes regulating the testing of employees for drugs or alcohol.
New York has no express employment drug or alcohol testing laws. Random drug and alcohol testing of city transit authority bus drivers, police officers and corrections officers has been upheld by courts.
North Carolina has a “Controlled Substance EXAMINATION Regulation” codified at Gen. Stat. 95-230 et seq. The law purports to protect individuals from “unreliable and inadequate examinations and screening for controlled substances” and to preserve an individual’s dignity to the extent practical, and focuses on chain-of-custody and laboratory testing procedures more than policy guidelines.
No statute expressly addresses employment drug and alcohol testing in North Dakota, and there is little, if any, CASE LAW in the area.
Ohio does not have any employment drug and alcohol testing laws.
Oklahoma’s “Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act”, Okla. Stat. 40-551, applies to both public and private employers. No unusual provisions.
No specific employment drug or alcohol testing laws.
Pennsylvania has not enacted any employment drug and alcohol testing laws.
Rhode Island’s “Urine and Blood Tests as a Condition of Employment” provision under R.I. Gen. Laws 28-6.5-1 and 28-6.5-2. prohibits the termination from employment of any person who tests positive for drugs or alcohol. Instead, the employee must be referred to a substance abuse professional for treatment or evaluation.
South Carolina’s law, modeled after the federal law, affects those doing business with the State. Codified at S.C. Code Ann. 44107-10 et seq. offers a 5 percent reduction in worker’s compensation premiums to participating employers (private employers are not required to implement such programs).
No employment drug and alcohol testing laws.
Tenn. Code Ann. 50-9-103 et. seq., gives a discount on workers’ compensation premiums and shifts the burden of proof to employees in case of an accident.
Under Tex. Code Ann. 411.091, the “Policy for Elimination of Drugs in the Workplace,” employers with fifteen or more employees with workers’ compensation insurance coverage are required to adopt a policy of their own choosing but directed at the elimination of drug abuse and its effects in the workplace.
Utah Code Ann. 34-38-1 et seq. employers may test employees or prospective employees as a condition of hire or continued employment. In a twist of the law, employers and management must submit to the testing themselves.
Vt. Stat. Ann. 21 § 511 et seq. prohibits random testing for drugs or the drug testing of employees as a condition of continued employment, promotion, or change in employee status.
No express law governs employment drug testing.
Washington Rev. Code 49.82.010 et seq. models the federal law. Private employers who adopt a drug-free workplace program will receive a 5 percent discount on their workers’ compensation premiums.
West Virginia has not enacted any employment drug or alcohol testing law, and in a 1990 case, the Supreme Court of West Virginia prohibited random testing by a private employer.
No express statute governs employment drug and alcohol testing.
Wyoming has no express statute governs employment drug and alcohol testing.