49 C.F.R. § 219.1
Purpose and scope
(a) The purpose of this part is to prevent accidents and casualties in railroad operations that result from impairment of employees by alcohol or drugs.
(b) This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for control of alcohol and drug use. This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001).
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001). “, at 620-621 (quoting 49 CFR § 219.1 (a) (1987)). Similarly, in Treasury Employees v.”
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989). “" 49 CFR § 219.1 (a) (1987). [5] This governmental interest in ensuring the safety of the traveling public and of the employees themselves plainly justifies prohibiting covered employees from using alcohol or drugs on duty, or while subject to being called for duty.”
People v. Dilworth, 661 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1996). “5, quoting 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1987).) And in New York v.”
State v. Olivas, 856 P.2d 1076 (Wash. 1993). “'") (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a)); National Treasury Employees Union v.”
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “3164 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1987)). The Court also reaffirmed the importance of the warrant requirement and individualized suspicion in other contexts.”
Commonwealth v. Danforth, 576 A.2d 1013 (Pa. 1990). “2d at 662, quoting 49 CFR § 219.1 (a) (1987). See also, Von Raab, supra 489 U.”
Michael Coffey, Jr. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 23 F.4th 332 (4th Cir. 2022). “Hence, “to prevent accidents and casualties in railroad operations” that might result if operators are impaired in their judgment, 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 , the FRA extensively regulates the use of controlled substances by railway employees.”
Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “at 1415 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1987)). In the Supreme Court's most recent foray into the realm of suspicionless drug testing, it again was clear, albeit in dicta, that the "special needs" exception does not apply to law enforeement-related searches.”
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, Also Known as C & T, Also Known as Utu Kent H. Madison, 3 F.3d 255 (8th Cir. 1993). “” 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 . Specifically, the regulations prohibit railroad employees from using or possessing alcohol or drugs while on duty and from reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett, 877 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “at 1415 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1987)). The Court’s legal conclusions regarding alcohol and drug testing of railroad employees to ensure railroad safety have no bearing on the issue presented in this case.”
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Casados, 862 P.2d 908 (Colo. 1993). “at 1415 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1987)). Thus, the Supreme Court stated that the "governmental interest in ensuring the safety of the traveling public and of the employees themselves plainly justifies prohibiting covered employees from using alcohol or drugs on duty.”
Exxon Corp. v. Esso Workers' Union, Inc., 118 F.3d 841 (1st Cir. 1997). “” 49 C.F.R. § 219.1 (a) (1996). The Federal Transit Administration’s regulations now require each recipient of a subsidy “to implement an anti-drug program to deter and detect the use of prohibited drugs by covered employees.”
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.