Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Court broadly defines employers subject to state's drug testing law

Reprints

Minnesota's drug testing law applies to all employers, even those whose business is not “relevant,” a federal appeals court said Monday in reversing a lower court ruling in a case involving a worker who took a job in another state.

Minnesota resident Shawn Olson had applied for and accepted a job in West Virginia with Rice Lake, Wisconsin-based Push Inc., a utility contractor, according to Monday's ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Shawn Olson v. Push Inc.

Mr. Olson underwent a pre-employment drug test at a clinic in Minnesota and started working for Push in West Virginia three days later, according to the ruling. When the drug test came back as “diluted” five days later, Push treated it as a positive result and terminated Mr. Olson's employment.

Mr. Olson filed suit initially in Minnesota state court, charging Push had violated a provision of the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act, which prohibits an employer from terminating an employee on the basis of a first positive result of an employer-requested drug or alcohol test confirmatory test, and gives the employee an opportunity to participate in a counseling or rehabilitation program, according to the ruling.

The case was moved to the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, which dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on the basis that the law applied only to firms that did “relevant” business in the state, and that “doing business” should not be construed broadly to include any employer who conducts any amount of business in the state, regardless of where the employment is taking place.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit reinstated the lawsuit.

“We conclude that (the law's) broad definition of 'employer' clearly and unambiguously includes all entities 'doing business in' Minnesota, and that Push, which conceded that it does business in Minnesota, falls within that definition,” said the ruling in reinstating the lawsuit and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Supervisors should undergo reasonable suspicion training to enforce drug-free workplace policies and ensure worker safety, speakers said during the 2015 California Workers' Compensation & Risk Conference in Dana Point, California in October.