Drug and Alcohol Testing: Expanding Employee Rights Under DATWA

Has your employer requested that you take a drug test? Were you subjected to a test without warning? Were you discharged because of a positive test result? Do you feel you were unlawfully fired because of a drug or alcohol problem?

Has your employer requested that you take a drug test? Were you subjected to a test without warning? Were you discharged because of a positive test result? Do you feel you were unlawfully fired because of a drug or alcohol problem?

Employers in industries ranging from service and hospitality to business or manufacturing will often take steps to ensure that employees are sober on the job. However, employers do not have unfettered discretion to test or discharge employees without following Minnesota law. Employers also face limitations when testing and taking disciplinary action in the event an employee has a positive drug test.

In the state of Minnesota, employers may not lawfully test an employee for drugs or alcohol unless they have already published a written policy that complies with the Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (a.k.a. DATWA). Essentially, DATWA gives permission and limits the rights of employers when testing employees for drug or alcohol use or bringing disciplinary action.

Under Minnesota law, employers may not discharge an employee based on a positive test result without a confirmatory test. Employees may also not be discharged unless an employee is given the opportunity to participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. An employee cannot be discharged unless they refused the program or failed to complete rehabilitation. The statute allows employees to sue employees for money damages if any employer was in violation of testing or disciplinary protocols.

On July 31, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court extended the statutory limitation for bringing DATWA cases. In the case, an employee was subjected to a drug test after an injury and returned a positive drug test result. The employer discharged the employee in violation of DATWA protocols. In defense, the employer claimed that the employee had waited too long (3 years) to file suit. In overturning the lower court’s decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court indicated that unless a statute concerning workplace rights contained an express statute of limitations, then the courts will turn to the six-year statute of limitations period.

The case opens up the possibility for additional lawsuits from employers who have violated workers’ rights under other Minnesota statutes. If you were discharged for a positive drug test and believe that your employer failed to follow DATWA rules, we are interested in hearing your story.  More information about DATWA can be found here.

Our law firm is dedicated to protecting the rights of Minnesota employees. We understand the serious personal and financial injury arising from illegal discharge and can successfully defend your rights and interests.  Contact us if you would like to speak with one of our employment attorneys about your case.