(a) Each railroad must require a regulated employee to submit to a breath alcohol test when the railroad has reasonable suspicion to believe that the regulated employee has violated any prohibition of subpart B of this part concerning use of alcohol. The railroad's determination that reasonable suspicion exists to require the regulated employee to undergo an alcohol test must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. A Federal reasonable suspicion alcohol test is not required to confirm the on-duty possession of alcohol.
(b) Each railroad must require a regulated employee to submit to a drug test when the railroad has reasonable suspicion to believe that the regulated employee has violated the prohibitions of subpart B of this part concerning use of controlled substances. The railroad's determination that reasonable suspicion exists to require the regulated employee to undergo a drug test must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. Such observations may include indications of the chronic and withdrawal effects of drugs.
(c) Reasonable suspicion observations made under this section must comply with the requirements of § 219.303.
(d) As provided by § 219.11(b)(2), in any case where an employee is suffering a substantiated medical emergency and is subject to alcohol or drug testing under this subpart, necessary medical treatment must be accorded priority over provision of the breath or body fluid specimens. However, when the employee's condition is stabilized, reasonable suspicion testing must be completed if within the eight-hour limit provided for in § 219.305.
Notes of Decisions
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989).
· cites it 2× “Except for the provisions authorizing breath and urine tests on a "reasonable suspicion" of drug or alcohol impairment, 49 CFR §§ 219.301 (b)(1) and (c)(2) (1987), the FRA regulations did not require a showing of individualized suspicion, and, accordingly, the court invalidated…”
State of Iowa v. Donald Joseph King, 867 N.W.2d 106 (Iowa 2015).
· cites it 2× “2d at 655–56 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 219.301 (b) (1987)). The Court held the government had an 2Thoughperformed by the railroad companies, there were sufficient “indices of the Government’s encouragement, endorsement, and participation” to implicate the Fourth Amendment.”
King v. Ryan, 607 N.E.2d 154 (Ill. 1992).
· cites it 2× “(1991)), or when a supervisor had a reasonable suspicion that either an employee's acts or omissions contributed to a reportable accident or that the employee was under the influence of alcohol (see 49 C.”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Burnley, 839 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 4× “49 C.F.R. § 219.301 (b)(1), 6 (c)(2) 7 . The railroads may also require testing when an employee is involved in an accident or incident which must be reported under Part 225 and a supervisor has reasonable suspicion that his acts or omissions contributed to the accident.”
Bratton v. CSX Transp., Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Mass. 2008).
· cites it 2× “601, and testing for reasonable cause, 49 C.F.R. § 219.301 . Samples for random drug testing generally were collected at the beginning of a shift.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. United Transp. Union, 794 F. Supp. 891 (D. Neb. 1992).
“Madison was sent to Laramie County Memorial Hospital for a reasonable-cause toxilogical test pursuant to federal regulations, see 49 C.F.R. § 219.301 , and was informed that he was being removed from *893 service pending the results of the tests.”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, 524 F. Supp. 2d 818 (N.D. Tex. 2007).
“Consequently, the entire train crew was required to submit to a drug/alcohol test pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 219.301 . As part of the test, Hughes was required to provide on August 26, 2003, a urine sample and to sign a testing form stating that the sample was hers and that she did…”
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.