![]() and CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, Appellants. 18–1464 Submitted October 14, 2020-Filed JTYLER DIX, JASON CATTELL, JIMMY McCANN, and JULIE ELLER, Appellees, vs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) two of the employees should not have been tested under Employer's testing program and were entitled to relief and (2) the other two employees were not entitled to relief. The district court granted relief to two of the four plaintiffs. ![]() Plaintiffs, three employees who tested positive and were terminated and a fourth who failed to provide an adequate sample, brought this action under the civil remedies provision of Iowa Code 730.5 arguing that Employer failed to follow statutory requirements involving workplace drug testing. ![]() The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that two of Employer's employees were improperly classified as engaged in safety-sensitive positions so that they should never have been drug tested and were entitled to relief and that two other employees were not aggrieved by Employer's actions in attempting to comply with the statutory requirements, holding that there was no error.Įmployer in this case amended its drug-testing policy to allow for unannounced random drug testing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |