Fitness-for-duty programs must—
(a) Provide reasonable assurance that individuals are trustworthy and reliable as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse;
(b) Provide reasonable assurance that individuals are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in any way adversely affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties;
(c) Provide reasonable measures for the early detection of individuals who are not fit to perform the duties that require them to be subject to the FFD program;
(d) Provide reasonable assurance that the workplaces subject to this part are free from the presence and effects of illegal drugs and alcohol; and
(e) Provide reasonable assurance that the effects of fatigue and degraded alertness on individuals' abilities to safely and competently perform their duties are managed commensurate with maintaining public health and safety.
Notes of Decisions
Daryle McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co, 867 F.3d 411 (3rd Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (b). If an employee’s fitness ■ is “questionable,” the employer “shall take immediate action to prevent the individual from” continuing to perform his duties.”
Stevens v. S. Nuclear Operating Co., 209 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (S.D. Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (b). The program must “[p]rovide reasonable measures for the early detection of individuals who are not fit to perform the duties that require them- to be subject to the FFD program .”
Silver v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 234 (S.D. Ill. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See 10 C.F.R. §§ 26.23 , 73.56 (2008). The FFD program is designed "to provide reasonable assurance" that employees are "trustworthy and reliable" and "are not under the influence of any substance, legal, or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in…”
Boldt v. N. States Power Co., 259 F. Supp. 3d 954 (D. Minnesota 2017).
“ability to safely and competently perform their duties; (c) Provide reasonable measures for the early detection of individuals who are not fit to perform the duties that require them to be subject to the FFD program; [and] (d) Provide reasonable assurance that the workplaces…”
Exelon Generation Co. v. Local 15, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 140 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2015).
“” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (a). It must also “provide reasonable assurance that individuals are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in any way adversely affects their ability to safely and competently…”
Boldt v. N. States Power Co., 195 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (D. Minnesota 2016).
· cites it 2× “ability to safely and competently perform their duties; (c) Provide reasonable measures for the early detection of individuals who are not fit to perform the duties that require them to be subject to the FFD program; [and] (d) Provide reasonable assurance that the workplaces…”
Thomas v. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (b). They also “[p]rovide reasonable assurance that individuals are trustworthy and reliable as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse.”
Taylor v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. Of Am. (M.D. La. 2023).
“at 2–3 (citing 10 C.F.R. §§ 26.23 , 26.189).) Lastly, Plaintiff states that his “employment was ultimately terminated based on his employer’s determination that he was unfit for duty.”
Williams v. BHI Energy I Power Servs. LLC (D. Minnesota 2023).
“” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (b). What is sufficient to meet a regulated entities’ obligations under federal law cannot be heralded now as an obstacle to accomplishing Congress’s objectives.”
Williams v. BHI Energy I Power Servs. LLC (D. Minnesota 2023).
“” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (b). What is sufficient to meet a regulated entities’ obligations under federal law cannot be heralded now as an obstacle to accomplishing Congress’s objectives.”
Summerland v. Constellation Energy Generation LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025).
“” 10 C.F.R. § 26.23 (a), (b) & (e). In assessing whether there has been any violation of an FFD policy or whether a particular employee meets fitness requirements, the employer may rely on a “medical review officer” (“MRO”), a physician who is knowledgeable about the employer’s…”
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.