49 C.F.R. § 382.605
Referral, evaluation, and treatment
The requirements for referral, evaluation, and treatment must be performed in accordance with 49 CFR part 40, Subpart O.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000).
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000). “49 CFR § 382.605 (1999). In Eastern's view, these provisions embody a strong public policy against drug use by transportation workers in safetysensitive positions and in favor of random drug testing in order to detect that use.”
S. California Gas Co. v. Util. Workers Union of Am., Local 132, Afl-Cio, 265 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2001). “After reviewing all of the applicable regulations, the Court concluded that “[n]either Congress nor the Secretary has seen fit to mandate the discharge of a worker who twice tests positive for drugs. We hesitate to infer a public policy in this area that goes beyond the careful…”
Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “The DOT regulations to which plaintiff's complaint alludes provide that a driver who *633 has tested positive for drugs cannot return to a safety-sensitive position until (1) the driver has been evaluated by a "substance abuse professional" to determine if treatment is needed,…”
Exxon Corp. v. Esso Worker's Union, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 703 (D. Mass. 1996). “6 In addition, 49 C.F.R. § 382.605 , which was promulgated after Smith’s suspension, requires that he also receive an evaluation by a substance abuse professional, 7 and, if he is deemed to require “assistance in resolving problems associated with .”
Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. City of Chicago, 751 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “§ 31306 (b)(1)(A) (1994)) (Testing Act), and the United States Department of Transportation’s implementing regulations by the Secretary of Transportation (49 C.F.R § 382.605 (1999)). The Court noted that the remedial aims of the Act are complex, including a Testing Act policy…”
Southwood Door Co. v. Burton, 847 So. 2d 833 (Miss. 2003). “Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 382.605 , Burton was referred to Patricia Sandusky, Ph.”
McIntyre v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.605 . [4] Chapter 633 applies only to those persons wishing to inspect, install, or maintain fire safety equipment.”
Midwest Crane & Rigging, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 603 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 2010). “§ 31310 (b)(1)(A) (requiring suspension of at least one year for a first offense); § 31310(c)(2) (requiring suspension of at least 10 years for a second offense).”
English v. Talladega Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 938 F. Supp. 775 (N.D. Ala. 1996). “49 C.F.R. § 382.605 . The DOT regulations concerning the testing procedures for employers are very detailed.”
Seiu Healthcare Pennsylvania, CTW, CLC v. Reg'l Hosp., 106 F. Supp. 3d 523 (M.D. Penn. 2015). “Further, the Court noted that the DOT Regulations specifically stated that a driver who has tested positive for drugs “cannot return to a safety-sensitive position until (1) the driver has been evaluated by a ‘substance abuse professional’ to determine if treatment is needed, 49…”
Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. City of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Department of Transportation's implementing regulations by the Secretary of Transportation ( 49 CFR §382.605 (1999)). The Court noted that the remedial aims of the Act are complex, including a Testing Act policy favoring rehabilitation of employees who use drugs: "Neither…”
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.