{"id":51191,"date":"2017-01-09T17:23:31","date_gmt":"2017-01-09T17:23:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/?p=51191"},"modified":"2022-12-01T09:31:18","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T14:31:18","slug":"most-restrictive-states-for-drug-testing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/blogs\/most-restrictive-states-for-drug-testing\/","title":{"rendered":"5 Most Restrictive States for Drug Testing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Five of the Most Restrictive States for Drug Testing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Blind Compliance?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I was once in a discussion with coworkers about blind obedience when someone suggested that there is no such thing.&nbsp; He contended that if you aren\u2019t aware of a rule, then you can\u2019t really obey it.&nbsp; In the same way, there is no such thing as blind compliance.&nbsp; If you aren\u2019t aware of the requirements of a state drug testing law, then you might get lucky on a couple of things, but it would be nearly impossible for you to be \u201cblindly\u201d compliant on all aspects of your substance abuse testing program.&nbsp; Whether you are starting a testing program from scratch or updating an existing program, keeping up to date on state laws is essential.&nbsp; Below are some of the most restrictive states on drug testing that illustrate the importance of regularly reviewing state law to ensure compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>California<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite not having a mandatory <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/drug-testing\/\"><strong>drug testing<\/strong><\/a> statute on the books, California proves to be one of the trickiest states for crafting and maintaining a workplace drug testing policy.&nbsp; In addition to strictly enforced privacy laws, laboratory licensing regulations, and labor laws, years of case law decisions provide detailed list of do\u2019s and don\u2019ts in the state.&nbsp; For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Business Necessity<\/strong>&nbsp;\u2013 in Loder v. Glendale the court established that an employer must demonstrate a competing interest of compelling need to justify a drug test that would otherwise constitute an invasion of privacy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Reasonable Suspicion<\/strong>&nbsp;\u2013 in Kraslawsky v. Upper Deck the court found that an employer must clearly demonstrate reasonable suspicion.&nbsp; Without such, a drug test would be considered a random test and thus an invasion of privacy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It is critical that employer&#8217;s doing business in California construct their policies after a thorough review and understanding of the impact of case law in the state.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Maine<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Maine\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/drug-testing\/\"><strong>drug testing<\/strong><\/a> law places many restrictions on employers, including limiting random drug testing.&nbsp; Maine\u2019s law restricts how and when random testing can be conducted.&nbsp; As well, Maine&#8217;s Department of Labor regulations add even more restrictions on random or &#8220;arbitrary&#8221; testing in Maine.&nbsp; For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>If an employer and his or her employees reach a collective agreement on random drug testing, an employer may conduct random drug testing according to the agreement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If an employer does not have a collective bargaining agreement, he or she may still conduct drug testing of safety-sensitive positions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If an employer has 50 or more employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, then the following conditions must be met:\n<ul>\n<li>The program must be developed by a committee of 10 employees eligible to be tested.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Selection for testing must be conducted by someone not under the influence of the employer from an anonymous list.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The program developed by the employee committee must be approved by the state Department of Labor.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This isn&#8217;t all.&nbsp; The law requires certified labs, confirmatory testing, specimen storage by lab, supervisor training, employee education, and employee assistance programs.&nbsp; It also requires collections take place in a medical facility.&nbsp; While this would rule out instant testing, the law specifically permits on-site tests, thus adding confusion into the mix.&nbsp;<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rhode Island<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rhode Island has a fairly restrictive mandatory <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/drug-testing\/\">drug testing<\/a><\/strong> law with very specific requirements governing testing circumstances and procedures.&nbsp; Despite these strict regulations, drug testing is possible and permitted.&nbsp; Drug testing is dependent upon reasonable suspicion.&nbsp; Without it, no testing may be conducted.&nbsp; This rules out suspicion-less testing methods such as random testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Applicant testing is permitted in Rhode Island after a conditional offer of employment has been made.&nbsp; Disciplinary procedures are permitted, but not for a first-time positive result.&nbsp; In such a case, an employer is required by law to refer the employee who tested positive to rehabilitation.&nbsp; Follow-up testing is allowed in conjunction with a rehabilitation referral.&nbsp; If an individual\u2019s testing shows continued drug use, he or she may then be terminated.&nbsp; If an employer violates the mandatory drug testing law, he or she may face a fine of up to $1,000, up to one year in prison, or both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Vermont<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Vermont&#8217;s drug testing law provides a restrictive drug testing environment.&nbsp; Although it is legal to conduct drug tests, there are many requirements to bear in mind. &nbsp;If probable cause exists, almost any type of drug testing is permitted.&nbsp; However, this is not the case for random testing, which is prohibited in all circumstances.&nbsp; In addition to probable cause, an employer must have an employee assistance program or be able to refer employees to such a program in order to conduct any type of drug testing.&nbsp; Point of collection testing is prohibited.&nbsp; The law only refers to lab-based testing and provides qualifications for labs (not for instant testing devices).&nbsp; Testing specimens are limited to urine and hair for drugs, breath for alcohol, and blood only when requested by a donor.&nbsp; Employers are required to cover the cost of all drug tests that they require.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Iowa<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Iowa\u2019s mandatory <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/drug-testing\/\"><strong>drug testing<\/strong><\/a> law is very detailed.&nbsp; With so many restrictions, it\u2019s easy to assume that it makes drug testing more difficult; however, just the opposite is true.&nbsp; Because the law spells things out in so much detail, drug testing in Iowa is relatively straightforward.&nbsp; For example, look at disciplinary procedures.&nbsp; Upon receipt of a confirmed positive test result for drugs or alcohol, or upon refusal by an employee to submit to drug testing, employers can discipline the individual in the following ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Rehabilitation, treatment, or counseling.&nbsp; This may include additional drug testing.&nbsp; Success in a program may be required in order to continue employment.&nbsp; The employer is not required to cover costs of program.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suspension of an employee, with or without pay, for a designated period of time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Termination of the individual\u2019s employment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Refusal to hire a prospective employee.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Other adverse employment action in conformance with a written policy, including any relevant collective bargaining agreement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Otherwise, all types of testing are permitted: pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, etc.&nbsp; The law clearly defines a sample as blood, breath, urine, or oral fluid.&nbsp; Collection procedures and chain of custody protocol are outlined in the law and MRO requirements are well-defined.&nbsp; In fact, one of the only things left out of the law is instant testing, which is not mentioned at all in the law (either to prohibit or to permit it).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While state drug testing laws can prove complicate, they are not impossible to navigate.&nbsp; With good information, the task becomes simpler.&nbsp; And if you have an experienced team of drug testing experts on your side, crafting and maintaining a strong and compliant policy becomes even easier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Five of the Most Restrictive States for Drug Testing Blind Compliance? I was once in a discussion with coworkers about blind obedience when someone suggested that there is no such thing.&nbsp; He contended that if you aren\u2019t aware of a rule, then you can\u2019t really obey it.&nbsp; In the same way, there is no such [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":54235,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"51535,50870,50935,50862,51391,50901","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[46,47,81],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51191"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51191\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}