• Prohibits breath testing: (e.g., FL, MD & MN)


• Five states and two cities do not allow post-accident testing: (CT, ME, RI, VT, WV, San Francisco, CA and Boulder, CO.)


• 16 states specify timing to request split specimen challenge: (AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, HI, IA, LA, ME, MN, MS, MT, OK, RI, TN & VT)


• Some states require specific cutoff levels: (FL, HI, KS, ME, MN, OK and others.)


• Some cities and states require an employer to pay for split specimen challenge: (RI and San Francisco, CA)


• Tree states require collectors to be registered with the state and pay a fee: (MD, OK & OR)


Marijuana Limitations As states continue to work on establishing medical and personal use of marijuana laws, employers are strongly suggested to review the specific language of the law(s) to determine any impacts on their workplace. For example, the laws in 10 states provide that employers may not discriminate against an individual because of their status as a medical marijuana patient. Four states do not consider a positive test result alone to be evidence that the donor was under the influence.


Conclusion It is true that “Little details have special talents in creating big problems!” If you fail to pay close attention to the details that apply to your program when conducting workplace screening, you could find yourself in an unpleasant and costly situation. Employers caught with their ”heads in the sand” or who use the excuse “but I didn’t know the rules” as a defense to workplace violations should be prepared to open their checkbooks. Inquire with industry professionals and your legal resources to evaluate your workplace-screening program on a routine basis.


www.datia.org 7 8 9


References 49 C.F.R. Part 40.


1 2 3 4


82 FR 52233-34; 82 FR 52245. 21 C.S.A. 801 et seq.


See 82 Fed. Reg. 52230, DOT Final Rule November 13, 2017, amending part 40, which became effective January 1, 2018.


5


HHS is the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is an agency within the HHS directly responsible for workplace drug and alcohol testing matters.


6


Alcohol was also not included in the required substances because, as HHS explained, the Mandatory Guidelines were designed to implement President Reagan’s Executive Order (12564), which did not include alcohol because it is a legal substance. Alcohol was added in 1994 as a required substance in accordance with the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991. See explanation at 50 Fed. Reg. 52230.


53 Fed. Reg. 11974, (1988). 53 Fed. Reg. 11974, (1988).


82 Fed. Reg. 52230, DOT Final Rule November 13, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.


10


82 Fed. Reg. 52235, DOT Final Rule November 13, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.


11


82 Fed. Reg. 52235, DOT Final Rule November 13, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.


12


https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/ standardinterpretations/2018-10-11.


13


Loder v. City of Glendale, 14 Cal. 4th App. 893-894; Smith v. Fresno Irrigation District, 72 Cal. App. 4th 147 (1999).


14


Pilkington Barnes Hind v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. App. 4th 28 (1998).


15 16 Kraslawsky v. Upper Deck Company, 56 Cal. App. 179 (1997).


Edgerton v. State Pers. Bd. (CAL TRANS), 83 Cal. App. 4th 1350 (2000).


17 Valenzuela v. State Pers. Bd., 153 Cal. App.4th 1179 (2007). 18 Haw. Rev. Stat. §329B-5(a). 19 Haw. Rev. Stat. §329B-5.5(3). 20 Haw. Rev. Stat. §329B-5.5(3)(A-C). Iowa Code Sec. 730.5.


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Iowa Code Sec. 730.5(7)(j)(1).


Iowa Code Sec. 730.5(9)(a)(1) and (2). Iowa Code Sec. 730.5(9)(a)(1). Iowa Code Sec. 730.5(7)(j)(1). Iowa Code Sec. 730.5(9)(h). 26 M.R.S.A §686(1). 26 M.R.S.A §685(2)(B). COMAR 10.10.10.06.


COMAR 10.10.10.06(B)(1). Minn. Stat. §181.952.


Minn. Stat. §181.953, subd. 10. Minn. Stat. §181.953, subd. 9. 13 N.C. Admin. Code 20.0401. 13 N.C. Admin. Code 20.0402. 13 N.C. Admin. Code 20.0602. O.S. §552(6). O.S. §554(3). O.S. §555.


OAC 310:638-1-7.


Bill is an attorney with over 33 years of experience in the workplace drug and alcohol testing industry. He is the Co-Founder of Drug Screening Compliance


Institute (DSCI) focusing on state, federal and subject-specific compliance research, policy development and review, training, education and consulting.


Bill is a past Co-Chairman of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce Drug-Free Workplace Program, a 10-year member of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) MRO Faculty, a past advisor to the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) MRO Committee, a 5-year participant in the White House Office of Na- tional Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Regional Student Drug Testing Summits, and a partici- pant in the 1988 White House Conference for a Drug Free America.


Bill has been involved in many workplace drug testing court cases at all levels, includ- ing the 1989 United States Supreme Court ‘Skinner’ decision. Bill co-founded Info-Lab, Inc. and managed Workplace Health Co-Op, a substance abuse program administrator. During his tenure with Info-Lab, Inc., he co- owned and operated Info-Meth, an HHS- certified laboratory located in Peoria, IL.


Bill has edited and written numerous ar- ticles and publications and regularly shares his industry expertise & thought leader- ship at several local, regional and national speaking events.


datia focus


51


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56