Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-14-101 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the intent of the General Assembly to promote drug-free workplaces in order that employers in this state may be afforded the opportunity to maximize their levels of productivity, enhance their competitive positions in the marketplace, and reach their desired levels of success without experiencing the costs, delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug or alcohol abuse by employees. It is further the intent of the General Assembly that drug and alcohol abuse be discouraged and that employees who choose to engage in drug or alcohol abuse face the risk of unemployment and the forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits.
1. If an employer implements a drug-free workplace program under this chapter that includes notice, education, and procedural requirements for testing for drugs and alcohol under rules developed by the Workers' Health and Safety Division, the covered employer may require the employee to submit to a test for the presence of drugs or alcohol, and if a drug or alcohol is found to be present in the employee's system at a level prescribed by statute or by rule adopted under this chapter as excessive, the employee may be terminated and may be precluded from workers' compensation medical and indemnity benefits.
2. However, a drug-free workplace program shall require the covered employer to notify all employees that it is a condition of employment for an employee to refrain from reporting to work or working with the presence of drugs or alcohol in the employee's body, and if an injured employee refuses to submit to a test for drugs or alcohol, the employee may be precluded from workers' compensation medical and indemnity benefits.

History. Acts 1999, No. 1552, § 1; 2001, No. 1757, § 9; 2017, No. 154, § 1.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2001, No. 1757, § 12, provided:

“All laws and parts of laws expressly in conflict with this act are repealed. No part of Act 796 of 1993 shall be impliedly repealed by this act or Act 1552 of 1999.”

Amendments. The 2017 amendment redesignated former (b) as (b)(1) and (b)(2); in (b)(1), substituted “program under this chapter” for “program in accordance with this chapter”, substituted “alcohol under rules” for “alcohol pursuant to rules”, and substituted “adopted under this chapter” for “adopted pursuant to this chapter”; and, in (b)(2), substituted “shall require” for “must require” and deleted the former last sentence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Oksana Oleszko v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, David Howard, & Dora Cooke, 243 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oksana Oleszko v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, David Howard, & Dora Cooke, 243 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2001). “Code § 25-5-330 (2001); Ark.Code Ann. § 11-14-101 (1999); Cal. Gov't Code § 19816.”

Pingatore v. Union Pac. R.R., 2017 Ark. App. 459 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The main question, however, is whether a triable issue of fact exists on whether UP’s testing in this case rose to the level of being highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

Hodge v. Twin City Transp. (E.D. Ark. 2020). · cites it 2× “See generally Ark. Code Ann. §§ 11-14-101 , et seq. Amendment, made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment; and (5) required a consent form to be signed before conducting the drug test in violation of HIPAA (Dkt.”

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.