(a) No employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test unless the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol which adversely affects or could adversely affect such employee's job performance.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, an employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test on a random basis if (1) such test is authorized under federal law, (2) the employee serves in an occupation which has been designated as a high-risk or safety-sensitive occupation pursuant to regulations adopted by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to chapter 54, or is employed to operate a school bus, as defined in section 14-275, or a student transportation vehicle, as defined in section 14-212, or (3) the urinalysis is conducted as part of an employee assistance program sponsored or authorized by the employer in which the employee voluntarily participates.
(P.A. 87-551, S. 6, 7; P.A. 91-271, S. 2; P.A. 07-224, S. 4; P.A. 16-169, S. 18.)
History: P.A. 91-271 amended Subsec. (a) to require the labor commissioner to adopt regulations specifying circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion; (Revisor's note: In 1997 references to “Commissioner of Labor” were changed editorially by the Revisors to “Labor Commissioner” for consistency with customary statutory usage); P.A. 07-224 amended Subsec. (b)(2) by adding provision re employee employed to operate a school bus or student transportation vehicle, effective July 1, 2007; P.A. 16-169 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provision re Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations re circumstances presumed to give rise to reasonable suspicion.
Cited. 243 C. 66.
Subsec. (a):
Issue of voluntary testing under statute should be resolved in manner consistent with federal fourth amendment constitutional law; plaintiff seen as voluntarily consenting to testing in case in which he was motivated by fear that he would be dismissed for attempting to remove employer's property from the plant without authorization. 244 C. 598.
Notes of Decisions
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 43 A.3d 722 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 17× “2 General Statutes § 31-51x (a) provides in relevant part: “No employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test unless the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol which adversely affects or could…”
Poulos v. Pfizer, Inc., 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1679 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 11× “, 2 had required him to submit to drug testing in violation of General Statutes § 31-51x 3 and unlawfully had terminated his employment on the basis of the results of those tests.”
Doyon v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 850 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1994).
· cites it 31× “1 There is no dispute that the plaintiff in the instant action was subjected to a urinalysis drug test solely because he was involved in a “serious accident” as that phrase is defined by the “substance abuse policy.”
Parsons v. United Tech. Corp., 700 A.2d 655 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 31-40q (limiting smoking in workplace); General Statutes § 31-40t (establishing employees’ right to act in case of hazardous conditions); General Statutes § 31-45a (delineating authority of labor commissioner to establish regulations regarding protection of…”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 153 A.3d 615 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “5 The plaintiff also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress against his supervisor, Kevin Trudelle; see footnote 3 of this opinion; intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant and Trudelle, and violations of General Statutes § 31-51x against…”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Conn. 2007).
· cites it 7× “Counts three and seven allege violations of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 31-51x and 46a-60(a)(1), respectively.”
Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc., 224 Conn. App. 248 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 7× “), a violation of § 21a-408p, and wrongful termination in violation of a drug testing statute (§ 31-51x), the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability and her qualification as a medical marijuana user.”
Johnson v. Carpenter Tech. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 180 (D. Conn. 1989).
· cites it 4× “” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-51x(a). The exceptions to this general rule permits random testing of employees: 1) involved in high risk or safety sensitive occupations, or 2) pursuant to a voluntary employee assistance program, or 3) to any extent permitted by federal law.”
Talenti v. Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co., 968 A.2d 933 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” 3 General Statutes § 31-51x (a) provides in relevant part: “No employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test unless the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol which adversely affects or could…”
Imme v. Fed. Express Corp., 193 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Conn. 2002).
· cites it 6× “In enacting § 31-51x, “the Connecticut legislature intended to adopt the Fourth Amendment standard of individualized suspicion in order to protect the privacy interests of employees.”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “5 The plaintiff also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress against his supervisor, Kevin Trudelle; see footnote 3 of this opinion; intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant and Trudelle, and violations of General Statutes § 31-51x against…”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 2× “‘‘On September 29, 2006, the plaintiff filed a seven count complaint against [Trudelle and the defendant], alleging (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress against the defendants, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants, and (3) violations…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51x(a) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Carpenter Tech. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 180 (D. Conn. 1989).
“” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-51x(a). The exceptions to this general rule permits random testing of employees: 1) involved in high risk or safety sensitive occupations, or 2) pursuant to a voluntary employee assistance program, or 3) to any extent permitted by federal law.”
Doyon v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 850 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1994).
“1 There is no dispute that the plaintiff in the instant action was subjected to a urinalysis drug test solely because he was involved in a “serious accident” as that phrase is defined by the “substance abuse policy.”
Imme v. Fed. Express Corp., 193 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Conn. 2002).
“In enacting § 31-51x, “the Connecticut legislature intended to adopt the Fourth Amendment standard of individualized suspicion in order to protect the privacy interests of employees.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51x(b) — 3 cases
Doyon v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 850 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1994).
“1 There is no dispute that the plaintiff in the instant action was subjected to a urinalysis drug test solely because he was involved in a “serious accident” as that phrase is defined by the “substance abuse policy.”
Johnson v. Carpenter Tech. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 180 (D. Conn. 1989).
“” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-51x(a). The exceptions to this general rule permits random testing of employees: 1) involved in high risk or safety sensitive occupations, or 2) pursuant to a voluntary employee assistance program, or 3) to any extent permitted by federal law.”
Poulos v. Pfizer, Inc., 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1679 (Conn. 1998).
“, 2 had required him to submit to drug testing in violation of General Statutes § 31-51x 3 and unlawfully had terminated his employment on the basis of the results of those 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.