Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 440.101 (2025)

Legislative intent; drug-free workplaces.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Hall v. Recchi Am. Inc., 671 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hall v. Recchi Am. Inc., 671 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · cites it 5× “For example, an employer instituting a drug-free workplace must provide education and notice which should discourage drug abuse. It is also clear that requiring a causal nexus between the drug abuse and the work-related accident will do nothing to detract from the legislative…”

Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. v. Phillips, 656 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). · cites it 8× “The E/C defended on the ground that the employer had implemented a drug-free workplace program and all benefits were barred pursuant to section 440.101, Florida Statutes (1991), or, in the alternative, the accident was primarily occasioned by drug use and therefore not…”

Commc'ns Workers of Am., Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 697 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). · cites it 2× “” § 440.101(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). In order to implement a “drug-free workplace program,” public employers are directed to engage in collective bargaining with public employee unions to negotiate any necessary changes in terms and conditions of employment.”

Williams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2008). “; Fla. Stat. § 440.101 et seq.; Haw.Rev.Stat.”

Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 3× “Fla. Stat. § 440.101 . While it is clear that the Florida legislature intended to encourage employers to institute drug-free work environments, no evidence demonstrates that it intended to create a private right of action for an employer’s failure to follow the program’s…”

Van Duyn v. Truck Driver Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 7× “She argues that the statutory forfeiture of benefits in section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), is not applicable because the clinic collecting the urine sample for the drug test did not give her an opportunity to be retested within 24 hours as required by the applicable…”

Clifford McCullough v. Nesco Resources LLC (11th Cir. 2019). “See Fla. Stat. § 440.101 . Rather, the statute provides in two different places the penalty for not following its procedures -- the employer would not qualify for discounts under Fla.”

— 440.101(1) — 1 case

Commc'ns Workers of Am., Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 697 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “” § 440.101(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). In order to implement a “drug-free workplace program,” public employers are directed to engage in collective bargaining with public employee unions to negotiate any necessary changes in terms and conditions of employment.”

— 440.101(2) — 1 case

Van Duyn v. Truck Driver Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “She argues that the statutory forfeiture of benefits in section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), is not applicable because the clinic collecting the urine sample for the drug test did not give her an opportunity to be retested within 24 hours as required by the applicable…”

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.