On April 11, 2025, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision in Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., Case No. 22-1599. In the Hampe case, the court found an employer violated Iowa's private employer drug testing statute, Iowa Code Section 730.5, by incorrectly forming a pool of employees for unannounced (sometimes referred to as random) drug testing. The employer failed to exclude from the selection pool employees who were not scheduled to be at work or who were excused from work on the date of testing. This is yet another example of a very specific rule of drug testing that can trip up Iowa employers.
Iowa's drug testing statute permits random drug testing of employees who were selected from one of three designated pools of employees. The three possible pools are: 1) the entire employee population at a particular work site; 2) the entire full-time active employee population at a particular work site; or 3) employees working in safety sensitive positions at a particular work site. Each of these pools contains a mandatory exception for "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 that the testing is announced to employees." These exceptions most often apply to employees who work a different shift than when the test occurs, are scheduled to have the day off in advance, or who are excused from work, even if not planned, pursuant to a PTO or sick time policy.
In the Hampe case, the employer did not attempt to exclude employees that fit into the exceptions from the testing pool before the random selection process. Instead, the employer asked its testing administrator to choose a random sample of 15 employees for testing from its entire employee list. The testing company's random generator produced a list of 23 names: 15 employees for testing plus eight alternates. On the date of testing, the employer started at the top of the list and worked its way down. If an employee was on the list but not physically present for any reason, the employer skipped over that employee and moved to the next name into the alternates list. Essentially, the employer was excluding the employees from the testing group after the random selection had been produced, not before. The employer also did not assess whether missing employees fit within the required exclusions from the testing pool. The Court ruled that since the employer did not even attempt to exclude required employees from the random pool prior to running the random sample, and did not attempt to assess whether employees who were not physically present fit within an exclusion, it did not prove substantial compliance with the statute.
The Hampe case is yet another example of the many specific requirements that present an opportunity for employers to make a mistake under Iowa's difficult employer drug testing law. Not only do employers need to have compliant written drug testing policies, but they need to accurately follow all of the steps required to comply with the statue, some of which may not appear in a written policy.
In Hampe, the Supreme Court also had the chance to provide guidance on other compliance issues under the statute involving supervisor training and testing policy disciplinary consequences language, and the impact of a failure to comply with those statutory requirements. However, once the Court found the testing pool composition violation, it deemed those other issues moot and did not opine on them. Definitive court guidance on those issues will have to wait for another case.
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.
