The Iowa Supreme Court recently clarified that a compliant random drug testing program under Iowa law requires excluding those who are not scheduled to work the day of the testing from the pool of employees who could be selected. Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc. d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines et ano., No. 22-1599 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2025).
Iowa has one of the most technical drug testing laws in the country. It allows unannounced random testing of:
(1) The entire employee population at a particular work site of the employer except for employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is conducted because of the status of the employees or who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer's work policy prior to the time the testing is announced to employees.
(2) The entire full-time active employee population at a particular work site except for employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is to be conducted because of the status of the employee or who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer's working policy.
(3) All employees at a particular work site who are in a pool of employees in a safety-sensitive position and who are scheduled to be at work at the time testing is conducted, other than employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is to be conducted or who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer's work policy prior to the time the testing is announced to employees.
Iowa Code 730.5(8)(a).
In the case before the Supreme Court, the employer used a random testing pool that consisted of all employees. The employer did not exclude employees who were not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing was conducted or who were excused from work pursuant to the employer's policy. Instead, the employer had a list of alternate employees who could be tested if selected employees were not at work on the day the testing was conducted.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that this practice did not "substantially comply" with the law. Strict compliance with the law is not required, it explained, but substantial compliance is required. The Court held that the employer did not substantially comply with the law when it made no attempt to exclude employees who were not scheduled to be at work or because they had been excused pursuant to an employer policy.
Focusing on the plain language of the statute, the Court stated that it is the way the random pool is constructed that matters, even if, as a practical matter, it is difficult to comply with the statute's requirements given the "fluid circumstances" of today's workplace.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
