IA: Two employees erroneously made “safety sensitive” for workplace drug testing

In this employee drug testing case, the employer wrongly classified two employees as “safety sensitive.” “Courts that have considered whether a position was ‘safety sensitive’ for purposes of satisfying Fourth Amendment or statutory protections likewise focus on the specific requirements of the job rather than on the environment within which the employee works.” Dix v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., 2021 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 89 (June 25, 2021). The introduction section:

Workplace drug testing is a controversial topic that pits an employer’s right to a drug-free workplace against the privacy interests of its employees. Prior to 1998, private employers were statutorily precluded from testing employees without a sufficient reason for doing so. The Iowa general assembly revamped its drug-testing statute to allow suspicionless drug testing, putting in place specific requirements for carrying out an unannounced testing program. Private employers who choose to engage in workplace drug testing must comply with the detailed and comprehensive statutory scheme or face civil liability.

After Casey’s amended its drug-testing policy to allow for unannounced random drug testing, its first testing endeavor ran into some snags. Three employees who tested positive and were terminated and another who failed to provide an adequate sample and was deemed to have resigned brought an action under the civil remedies provision of Iowa Code section 730.5 challenging a number of areas where they claim Casey’s failed to follow statutory requirements.

This case raises significant issues under Iowa’s private employer drug-testing statute, including when an employer is entitled to immunity, what it takes to comply with the statutory requirements, the meaning of “safety-sensitive positions,” and the process for selecting employees for testing, among others. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that two employees were improperly classified as engaged in safety-sensitive positions, so they should never have been tested and were entitled to the relief the court granted. The other two employees were not aggrieved by Casey’s actions in attempting to comply with the statutory requirements, so we also affirm the district court’s judgment as to those employees.