“Drug testing was originally designed to test for illegal drugs. In 1987 Minnesota legislators enacted a law that would prohibit companies from taking action against employees that tested positive for legal or perscribed substances. This law allowed football players Kevin William and Pat Williams to continue to play football with the Vikings. They tested positive for bumetanide which is a diueretic used for weight control. As as a side affect it can possible mask steriod use. Shouldn’t the burden be on the lab? If bumetanide can tamper with results from the test then the testing procedure needs to be improved. This abuse is what the Minnesota law was designed to protect.”
If Brett Favre decides to buy that condominium in Edina and move to Minnesota to play quarterback for the Vikings, he may be legally entitled to block the National Football League (NFL) from testing him for steroids and other drugs under the NFL’s current policy.
That is the potential consequence of a recent ruling by Judge Gary Larson in Hennepin County District Court in which he ruled that the NFL was temporarily restrained from suspending Vikings defensive tackles Kevin Williams and Pat Williams for testing positive for bumetanide, a diuretic which may mask the presence of steroids.
Judge Larson based his ruling on a unique Minnesota law passed in 1987 known as the Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA), as well as another Minnesota statute, the Lawful Consumable Products Act, which prohibits employers from taking adverse action based on an employee’s use of lawful products, such as alcohol or nicotine, so long as it is off hours on the worker’s own time. As the Vikings, Twins and other sports teams wrestle with the use of performance-improving drugs, Larson’s decision also highlights the need for all employers to be wary of drug-testing employees in Minnesota and for the Legislature to reform defects in the law.
The workplace act is probably the most complex drug-testing law in the country and creates a briar patch of liability for unsuspecting employers. The law permits drug testing only in limited circumstances, such as:
• When the subject is a job applicant.
• As part of a routine physical examination no more than once a year.
• On a random basis only for “safety-sensitive” positions (or professional athletes).
• When the employer has “reasonable suspicion,” for example after an accident or injury.
• Following the employee’s participation in a treatment program.
