49 C.F.R. § 382.101
Purpose
The purpose of this part is to establish programs designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1997–2020 · leading case: Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. The Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem., & Energy Workers Int'l Union Local No. 2-991, 385 F.3d 809 (3rd Cir. 2004).
Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. The Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem., & Energy Workers Int'l Union Local No. 2-991, 385 F.3d 809 (3rd Cir. 2004). “, and the Department of Transportation regulations promulgated under it, 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 et seq. That Act and its regulations allow employees a second chance for rehabilitation.”
Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc., 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000). “In addition, the regulations provide that “[t]he purpose ... is to establish programs designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers of commercial motor vehicles.”
Exxon Corp. v. Esso Workers' Union, Inc., 118 F.3d 841 (1st Cir. 1997). “” 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 (1996). Congress’ strongest statement against the performance of safety-sensitive tasks while under the influence of drugs is embodied in the DFW Act, which instructs federal agencies to award contracts or grants only to those employers who promise to…”
Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 et seq. The regulations, in part, require that truck drivers holding commercial driver's licenses be subject to random drug testing by their employers, see 49 C.”
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 66 F. Supp. 2d 796 (S.D.W. Va 1998). “” 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 (1998). According to Eastern, the DOT Regulations were enacted primarily to protect the public from *804 injury and necessarily cover those situations where an employee tests positive for drug use despite a lack of evidence that he was under the influence…”
Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 et seq. The regulations in part require that truck drivers holding commercial driver’s licenses be subject to random drug testing by their employers.”
Krieg v. Seybold, 427 F. Supp. 2d 842 (N.D. Ind. 2006). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 , et seq. Many of these requirements are similar to the requirements the City explicitly adopted in its prior Personnel Policies Handbook at paragraph 1.”
in Re: UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (Tex. App. 2020). “49 C.F.R. § 382.101 (2020). The regulations require certain testing of drivers.”
in Re: UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (Tex. App. 2020). “49 C.F.R. § 382.101 (2020). The regulations require certain testing of drivers.”
Gordon v. Swift Transp. Servs., LLC (W.D. Ky. 2020). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 . Employers may administer drug tests to determine whether one is engaged in drug use, but they are not required to do so.”
Citgo Asphalt v. Local 2-991 (3rd Cir. 2004). “, and the Department of However, the fact that two companies with Transportation regulations promulgated safety records that are inferior to CITGO’s under it, 49 C.F.R. § 382.101 et seq. That do not have zero tolerance policies does Act and its regulations allow employees a not…”
Moreno v. ODACS, Inc., 2014 Ohio 5007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Therefore, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a DOT agency, issued those regulations (“the DOT regulations”), which subjected commercial drivers, including school bus drivers, to random drug tests.”
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.