Iowa Court of Appeals Files Opinion Related to Employment Drug Testing
Tags : Drug Screening
The case involves termination of employment, random workplace drug testing policies and Iowa's drug testing laws.
In Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc., workplace policies required employees to submit to random drug tests as requested by the employer, Gabus. Gabus contacted its vendor for a randomized employee list as well as a list of "alternates." The plaintiff (Hampe) was listed as an alternate; however, not enough primarily selected individuals were at work or available on the day of the test so Hampe was included in the testing process that day.
Hampe's original sample was discarded by the medical review officer (MRO) because it was out of the appropriate temperature range. He was asked to wait and provide a second specimen but was unable to produce a second sample. Hampe returned to the waiting room to drink water and wait until he could produce a sufficient sample but left prior to providing the specimen, citing he needed to return home to care for a sick child. Gabus did advise Hampe that if he left, it would constitute a refusal and he would be terminated.
Ultimately, Hampe was terminated and subsequently filed suit. Initially, Hampe's claims were dismissed. On appeal, the court determined that further proceedings were warranted and additional deliberation was required regarding the following:
- Random Testing Pool: Gabus' randomized lists were based off a pool of all employees and did not take into account whether an individual would be onsite the day the testing was to be performed. The plaintiff argued that this was out of compliance with the Iowa law as those selected for the test date may not be onsite. Gabus countered that the alternate list mitigated this issue and rendered them compliant.
- Supervisor Training Requirements: Hampe claimed that only one supervisor was involved in the process and that this individual was not trained regarding randomized drug testing. Iowa's law requires both initial training and annual supervisor training.
- Uniform Disciplinary Policy: Gabus's policy allowed for a variety of potential disciplinary actions in response to a violation. The court held that "the [Iowa] statute requires uniform requirements for what actions the employer 'shall' take." The plaintiff claimed that other employees were treated differently and more favorably.
Iowa employers are encouraged to review Iowa Code Section 730.5 to ensure that drug and alcohol testing policies comply with the stated requirements of the law.
Posted: January 30, 2024
All Rights Reserved © 2024 Business Information Group, Inc.
This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.
We cannot express enough how much we have enjoyed working with BIG! It has really benefitted our processing and ease of doing business!
I enjoy collaborating with BIG, and know that if I have to reach out with a question/concern, a positive attitude with a willingness to find resolve is on the other side of an email or a phone call.
You have been the most professional and most helpful business partner that I have ever been associated with — always there to assist us and with rapid turnaround times.
I am confident whenever we add a product with your company that I will have a good experience.
We have received superior service and we know this is what you and your team strive for. We are grateful for the dedication, level of professionalism and effort shown.