The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXI
LABOR

Chapter 440
WORKERS' COMPENSATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 440.101

440.101 Legislative intent; drug-free workplaces.—

(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to promote drug-free workplaces in order that employers in the state be afforded the opportunity to maximize their levels of productivity, enhance their competitive positions in the marketplace, and reach their desired levels of success without experiencing the costs, delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees. It is further the intent of the Legislature that drug abuse be discouraged and that employees who choose to engage in drug abuse face the risk of unemployment and the forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits.

(2) If an employer implements a drug-free workplace program in accordance with s. 440.102 which includes notice, education, and procedural requirements for testing for drugs and alcohol pursuant to law or to rules developed by the Agency for Health Care Administration, the employer may require the employee to submit to a test for the presence of drugs or alcohol and, if a drug or alcohol is found to be present in the employee’s system at a level prescribed by rule adopted pursuant to this act, the employee may be terminated and forfeits his or her eligibility for medical and indemnity benefits. However, a drug-free workplace program must require the employer to notify all employees that it is a condition of employment for an employee to refrain from reporting to work or working with the presence of drugs or alcohol in his or her body and, if an injured employee refuses to submit to a test for drugs or alcohol, the employee forfeits eligibility for medical and indemnity benefits.

History.—s. 12, ch. 90-201; s. 12, ch. 91-1; s. 8, ch. 93-415; s. 2, ch. 96-289; s. 1049, ch. 97-103.

F.S. 440.101 on Google Scholar

F.S. 440.101 on Casetext

Amendments to 440.101

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 440.101

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 440.101.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

A. HUDSON, v. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH,, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 440.101. . . . And, while Section 440.101 does not expressly set forth any private cause of action, significantly, Section . . .

WILLIAMS, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 527 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 440.101 et seq.; Haw.Rev.Stat. § 329B-1 et seq.; Idaho Code Ann. § 72-1701 et seq.; Iowa Code Ann . . .

VAN DUYN, v. TRUCK DRIVER SERVICES, INC., 805 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . She argues that the statutory forfeiture of benefits in section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), . . . Section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that [i]f an employer implements a drug-free workplace . . . Claims (JCC) held Van Duyn was ineligible for worker’s compensation benefits on the authority of section 440.101 . . . return to give a second sample at a later time, Van Duyn submits that the bar to benefits in section 440.101 . . . Moreover, we reject Van Duyn’s argument that the bar to benefits provided in section 440.101(2) does . . .

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE,, 697 So. 2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Sections 440.101 and 440.102, Florida Statutes (1995), were enacted “to promote drug-free workplaces. . . . ” § 440.101(1), Fla. . . . Statutes (1995), by imposing contract language which abrogated employees’ statutory rights under sections 440.101 . . .

HALL, v. RECCHI AMERICA INC., 671 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See §§ 440.09(3), 440.09(7), 440.101, 440.102, Fla.Stat. (1991); Ch. 38F-9, Fla.Admin.Code. . . . Section 440.101, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to promote . . . Section 440.101 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature that drug abuse be discouraged and . . . delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees.” § 440.101 . . .

SKF MANAGEMENT v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION,, 664 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . described in this subsection, an employer must have implemented a drug-free workplace program under ss. 440.101 . . .

GUSTAFSON S DAIRY, INC. PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, INC. v. PHILLIPS,, 656 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . employer had implemented a drug-free workplace program and all benefits were barred pursuant to section 440.101 . . . Section 440.101 sets forth the legislative intent regarding drug-free workplaces: ... . . . noted that the question of what constitutes “compensation” had to be addressed because unlike section 440.101 . . . denied under section 440.09(3), the legislature could have used the same terminology used in section 440.101 . . . ’s rebanee on the fact that the legislature referred to “medical and indemnity benefits” in section 440.101 . . .

JONES v. FLORIDA POWER CORP., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954)

. . . third-party tort-feasor,, since Section 440.11 provides that “The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.101 . . .