C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 382—CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING › Subpart A—General

49 C.F.R. § 382.109

Preemption of State and local laws

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part preempts any State or local law, rule, regulation, or order to the extent that:

(1) Compliance with both the State or local requirement in this part is not possible; or

(2) Compliance with the State or local requirement is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of any requirement in this part.

(b) This part shall not be construed to preempt provisions of State criminal law that impose sanctions for reckless conduct leading to actual loss of life, injury, or damage to property, whether the provisions apply specifically to transportation employees, employers, or the general public.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002). · cites it 3× “(b) This part shall not be construed to preempt provisions of State criminal law that impose sanctions for reckless conduct leading to actual loss of life, injury, or damage to property, whether the provisions apply specifically to transportation employees, employers, or the…”
Richard S. Belde v. Ferguson Enter., Inc., Minnesota Transp. Servs. Ass'n, Amicus on Behalf Of, 460 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 31306 (g); 49 C.F.R. § 382.109 (a). Therefore, Belde concluded, he is entitled to damages for Ferguson’s violations of DATWA.”
McIntyre v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “" 49 C.F.R. § 382.109 . Prior to testing employees, employers are required to give each employee a written notice stating what actions can be taken as a result of a positive drug test.”
Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “49 C.F.R. § 382.109 . However, the question is whether the Act works to completely preempt plaintiffs state law claims.”
Williams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2008). “The DOT regulations contain an express preemption provision: “this part preempts any State or local law .”
Menge v. Reed, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9258 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” ( 49 C.F.R. § 382.109 (1999).) The DMV argues that, by requiring the DMV to reinstate Menge’s certificate, the trial court’s action presents “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution” of the federal regulations.”
Richard S. Belde v. Ferguson Enter. (8th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 31306 (g); 49 C.F.R. § 382.109 (a). Therefore, Belde concluded, he is entitled to damages for Ferguson’s violations of DATWA.”
State, Dep't of Transp. v. Plummer, 774 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.109 . The preemption of state law or a state hearing officer’s order is express and unambiguous.”
Moreno v. ODACS, Inc., 2014 Ohio 5007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “49 C.F.R. 382.109. See Clanin v. N. Am. Bulk Transp.”
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.