Opinion ID: 2132750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Iowa's Workplace Drug Testing Law.

Text: Our examination of the facts of this case will be more meaningful if we first review the drug testing law against which the employer's actions must be judged. Therefore, we begin with a discussion of those portions of section 730.5 that are pertinent to this appeal. Iowa Code section 730.5 sets forth the requirements for workplace drug testing in the private sector. Prior to 1998, it prohibited random or blanket drug testing of employees. See Iowa Code § 730.5(2) (1997). In 1998, the legislature amended section 730.5 to permit such tests. 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1011. Currently, section 730.5(4) states: To the extent provided in subsection 8, an employer may test employees and prospective employees for the presence of drugs or alcohol as a condition of continued employment or hiring. An employer shall adhere to the requirements of this section concerning the conduct of such testing and the use and disposition of the results of such testing. Iowa Code § 730.5(4) (emphasis added). The statute specifically permits the employer to use a confirmed positive drug test result as a valid basis for disciplinary... actions pursuant to the requirements of the employer's written policy and the requirements of this section,  including termination of employment. Id. § 730.5(10) (emphasis added). Subsection 7 of the statute outlines the testing procedures, stating that [a]ll sample collection and testing for drugs or alcohol under this section shall be performed in accordance with the specified conditions. Id. § 730.5(7) (emphasis added). The law requires that collected samples be split into two components. Id. § 730.5(7)( b ). If an initial screening of the first portion is positive, the results must be confirmed by a second test of the same portion using a different chemical process than was used in the initial screening. Id. § 730.5(7)( f )(1). The second portion of the sample is reserved for a second, independent confirmatory test as provided in paragraph ` i '. Id. § 730.5(7)( b ). Paragraph  i  states in relevant part: If a confirmed positive drug or alcohol test for a current employee is reported to the employer by the medical review officer, the employer shall notify the employee in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the results of the test, the employee's right to request and obtain a confirmatory test of the second sample collected pursuant to paragraph  b  at an approved laboratory of the employee's choice, and the fee payable by the employee to the employer for reimbursement of expenses concerning the test. The fee charged an employee shall be an amount that represents the costs associated with conducting the second confirmatory test, which shall be consistent with the employer's cost for conducting the initial confirmatory test on an employee's sample. If the employee, in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, requests a second confirmatory test, identifies an approved laboratory to conduct the test, and pays the employer the fee for the test within seven days from the date the employer mails by certified mail, return receipt requested, the written notice to the employee of the employee's right to request a test, a second confirmatory test shall be conducted at the laboratory chosen by the employee.... If the results of the second test do not confirm the results of the initial confirmatory test, the employer shall reimburse the employee for the fee paid by the employee for the second test and the initial confirmatory test shall not be considered a confirmed positive drug or alcohol test for purposes of taking disciplinary action pursuant to subsection 10. Id. § 730.5(7)( i ) (emphasis added). With this general frame of reference, we now turn to the facts of the case before us.