A. No cause of action is or may be established for any person against an employer who has established a policy and initiated a testing program in accordance with this article for any of the following:
1. Actions in good faith based on the results of a positive drug test or alcohol impairment test.
2. Failure to test for drugs or alcohol impairment or failure to test for a specific drug or any other controlled substance.
3. Failure to test or, if tested, failure to detect any specific drug or other substance, any medical condition or any mental, emotional or psychological disorder or condition.
4. Termination or suspension of any substance abuse prevention or testing program or policy.
5. Actions based on the employer's good faith belief that an employee used or possessed any drug while on the employer's premises or during the hours of employment.
6. Actions based on the employer's good faith belief that an employee had an impairment while working while on the employer's premises or during hours of employment.
7. Actions to exclude an employee from performing a safety-sensitive position, including reassigning the employee to another position or placing an employee on paid or unpaid leave, based on the employer's good faith belief that the employee is engaged in the current use of any drug, whether legal, prescribed by a physician or otherwise, if the drug could cause an impairment or otherwise decrease or lessen the employee's job performance or ability to perform the employee's job duties. The belief regarding the effects of the drug may be based on information including results of a test for the use of alcohol or drugs, warning labels or other printed materials that accompany instructions for use of the drug, statements by the employee, information from a physician or pharmacist, information from reputable reference sources in print or on the internet or other information the employer in good faith believes to be reliable.
B. The actions of an employer protected by this section include implementing, monitoring or measures to assess, supervise or control the job performance of the employee, reassignment of an employee to a different position or job duties or suspension or termination of employment.
Notes of Decisions
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 15× “In its Answer, Defendant also alleged as an affirmative defense that it "has established a policy and implemented a drug testing program in compliance with Arizona law, so its actions toward Plaintiff are protected from litigation under A.R.S. § 23-493.06," Arizona's Drug…”
Terry v. UPS (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-493.06 (“Employer protection from litigation”).”
jtsg/zurich v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “They also argued that the ALJ erred in not applying the safety-sensitive position exception in the AMMA found at A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(7). At oral argument, Petitioners stated that this Court did not need to address these two arguments and asked that it solely focus on their…”
Lee v. Albertson's LLC (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(7). 13 II. The Accident, Positive Drug Test, And Termination 14 Since 2012, Plaintiff Thomas Lee has held a medical marijuana card issued by the 15 Arizona Department of Health Services.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-493.06(6) — 1 case
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
“In its Answer, Defendant also alleged as an affirmative defense that it "has established a policy and implemented a drug testing program in compliance with Arizona law, so its actions toward Plaintiff are protected from litigation under A.R.S. § 23-493.06," Arizona's Drug…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-493.06(7) — 1 case
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
“In its Answer, Defendant also alleged as an affirmative defense that it "has established a policy and implemented a drug testing program in compliance with Arizona law, so its actions toward Plaintiff are protected from litigation under A.R.S. § 23-493.06," Arizona's Drug…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-493.06(A)(6) — 1 case
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
“In its Answer, Defendant also alleged as an affirmative defense that it "has established a policy and implemented a drug testing program in compliance with Arizona law, so its actions toward Plaintiff are protected from litigation under A.R.S. § 23-493.06," Arizona's Drug…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-493.06(A)(7) — 3 cases
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
“In its Answer, Defendant also alleged as an affirmative defense that it "has established a policy and implemented a drug testing program in compliance with Arizona law, so its actions toward Plaintiff are protected from litigation under A.R.S. § 23-493.06," Arizona's Drug…”
jtsg/zurich v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“They also argued that the ALJ erred in not applying the safety-sensitive position exception in the AMMA found at A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(7). At oral argument, Petitioners stated that this Court did not need to address these two arguments and asked that it solely focus on their…”
Lee v. Albertson's LLC (D. Ariz. 2020).
“” A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(7). 13 II. The Accident, Positive Drug Test, And Termination 14 Since 2012, Plaintiff Thomas Lee has held a medical marijuana card issued by the 15 Arizona Department of Health Services.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.