49 C.F.R. § 382.211
Refusal to submit to a required alcohol or controlled substances test
No driver shall refuse to submit to a pre-employment controlled substance test required under § 382.301, a post-accident alcohol or controlled substance test required under § 382.303, a random alcohol or controlled substances test required under § 382.305, a reasonable suspicion alcohol or controlled substance test required under § 382.307, a return-to-duty alcohol or controlled substances test required under § 382.309, or a follow-up alcohol or controlled substance test required under § 382.311. No employer shall permit a driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Ziemkiewicz v. R + L Carriers, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Maryland 2014).
Ziemkiewicz v. R + L Carriers, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Maryland 2014). “” 49 C.F.R. § 382.211 . Either a refusal or a positive DOT test disqualifies an employee from any safety-sensitive position, including commercial truck driving.”
Richard S. Belde v. Ferguson Enter., Inc., Minnesota Transp. Servs. Ass'n, Amicus on Behalf Of, 460 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2006). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 382.211 , 382.501. Belde nonetheless refused to be tested.”
Duane Dewey Anderson v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 97, 354 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2003). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.211 . An inadequate sample is treated under the regulations as a refusal to test.”
Duane Dewey Anderson v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 97, 357 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.211 (1997). An inadequate sample is treated under the regulations as a refusal to test.”
Menge v. Reed, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9258 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “” ( 49 C.F.R. § 382.211 (1999).) A driver is deemed to refuse to submit to an alcohol or controlled substances test if she fails to provide an adequate urine sample or “[e]ngages in conduct that clearly obstructs the testing process.”
M.A. Carr v. Twp. of Falls & Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 542 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). “” 49 C.F.R. §382.211 (emphasis added); see also Section 40.”
Richard S. Belde v. Ferguson Enter. (8th Cir. 2006). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 382.211 , 382.501. Belde nonetheless refused to be tested.”
State, Dep't of Transp. v. Plummer, 774 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “…those orders and quash the subpoena issued below. MINER and ALLEN, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY, Senior Judge, concur. . See 49 C.F.R. § 382.211 .”
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.