U.S. District Judge Upholds Federal Preemption Over Minnesota State Drug Testing Law

Quick Hits

• The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of a natural gas distribution company that discharged an employee who failed a random drug test.
• The court found that federal laws, including the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act, and DOT drug and alcohol testing regulations preempted DATWA’s employment protections regarding drug testing.
• The decision underscores the significance of federal preemption in workplace drug testing, emphasizing the necessity for employers to align their policies with federal regulations when conflicts arise with state laws.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel granted summary judgment for Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation (MERC) in a lawsuit by a discharged employee who alleged the company violated DATWA. The employee, who worked as a gas distribution system designer, alleged the company violated DATWA in part by requiring the employee to submit to a random drug test and failing to provide him with required notices.

However, the court found that it was impossible for the company to comply with both the federal DOT regulations, which require random drug testing and immediate removal after positive results, and Minnesota’s DATWA, which provides employment protections regarding employer drug tests. Thus, the court ruled that the federal regulations preempt DATWA and dismissed the employee’s claims.

Background

The lawsuit was brought by an employee who was discharged after he tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana or cannabis, in a random employer drug test.

The company is subject to the DOT regulations for companies transporting hazardous materials, which require employers to maintain a drug and alcohol testing program. The employer maintained a drug and alcohol testing policy that required employees in safety-sensitive positions who perform “covered functions” to submit to random drug testing.

Following his discharge, the employee and his union filed a grievance. An arbitrator determined that the employee was subject to random drug testing under federal law and that the company acted with just cause in discharging him for failing the drug test. The arbitrator did not address whether the employee was in a safety-sensitive position under DATWA or adjudicate any of the DATWA claims.

The employee then filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging he was not supposed to be subject to random testing and that the employer had failed to provide the required notices under DATWA. Specifically, the employee alleged the company violated DATWA by: (1) requiring him to submit to a random drug test, (2) failing to inform him of his rights in writing, (3) failing to offer counseling or rehabilitation before discharging him, and (4) disclosing his positive test result to a federal agency without a confirmatory test.

Federal Preemption

The district court found that the federal DOT regulations expressly preempt the employee’s DATWA claims because complying with both DATWA and the applicable federal regulations would be impossible or impede the execution of federal drug testing procedures.

DATWA includes many employment protections for employees regarding drug testing. The law requires employers to inform employees in writing of their rights to testing and to a confirmatory test, prohibits employers from discharging employees without first providing them with an opportunity to participate in a counseling or rehabilitation program, and restricts the disclosure of a positive test result.

Also, DATWA contains a preemption clause that exempts employees who are subject to drug and alcohol testing under “federal regulations that specifically preempt state regulation of [such] testing with respect to those employees.”

On the other hand, the applicable DOT regulations state that they preempt state or local requirements where compliance with both “is not possible.” The regulations also require mandatory random drug testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions, require immediate removal from such positions upon a positive test result, require the medical review officer (not the employer) to take certain actions, and further outline specific procedures for notifying employees of positive test results.

“DOT regulations expressly preempt DATWA because compliance with both federal regulations and DATWA is either impossible or an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of DOT requirements,” the court said.

Alternatively, the court further determined that the company had met the burden of showing that the federal regulations preempt DATWA under a theory of conflict preemption for the same reasons.

Next Steps

The court’s decision in favor of the employer highlights the importance of federal preemption in workplace drug testing. Employers must adhere to federal regulations, which can override state laws when there is a conflict. This ruling serves as a critical reminder for employers to ensure their drug testing policies comply with federal standards, particularly for employees in safety-sensitive positions.

Ogletree Deakins’ Drug Testing Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Drug Testing and Minnesota blogs as additional information becomes available.

Editor’s Note: Attorneys from Ogletree Deakins represented the employer in this litigation.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts