O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-414 (2019)

Notice of testing; written policy statement

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) One time only, prior to testing, all employees and job applicants for employment must be given a notice of testing. In addition, all employees must be given a written policy statement from the employer which contains: (1) A general statement of the employer’s policy on employee substance abuse which shall identify: (A) The types of testing an employee or job applicant may be required to submit to, including reasonable suspicion or other basis used to determine when such testing will be required; and

(B) The actions the employer may take against an employee or job applicant on the basis of a positive confirmed test result; (2) A statement advising an employee or job applicant of the existence of this article; (3) A general statement concerning confidentiality; (4) The consequences of refusing to submit to a drug test; (5) A statement advising an employee of the Employee Assistance Program, if the employer offers such program, or advising the employee of the employer’s resource file of assistance programs and other persons, entities, or organizations designed to assist employees with personal or behavioral problems; (6) A statement that an employee or job applicant who receives a positive confirmed test result may contest or explain the result to the employer within five working days after written notification of the positive test result; and (7) A statement informing an employee of the provisions of the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act or Chapter 23 of Title 45, the ‘‘Drug-free Public Work Force Act of 1990,’’ if applicable to the employer. (b) An employer not having a substance abuse testing program in effect on July 1, 1993, shall ensure that at least 60 days elapse between a general one-time notice to all employees that a substance abuse testing program is being implemented and the beginning of the actual testing. An employer having a substance abuse testing program in place prior to July 1, 1993, shall not be required to provide a 60 day notice period. (c) An employer shall include notice of substance abuse testing on vacancy announcements for those positions for which testing is required. A notice of the employer’s substance abuse testing policy must also be posted in an appropriate and conspicuous location on the employer’s premises, and copies of the policy must be made available for inspection by the employees or job applicants of the employer during regular business hours in the employer’s personnel office or other suitable locations.

History

(Code 1981, § 34-9-414, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1512, § 2.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, paragraph (a)(8) was redesignated as paragraph (a)(7) thereof, since this Code section was

enacted without a paragraph (a)(7), and in that paragraph, ‘‘Drug-free’’ was substituted for ‘‘Drug-Free’’.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construction of § 34-9-17(b)(3) with § 34-9-414. - Rebuttable presumption of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-17(b)(3) that injury was caused by alcohol or drugs incorporates only the drug testing procedures of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-415, not the notice provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-414. Georgia

Self-Insurers Guar. Trust Fund v. Thomas, 269 Ga. 560, 501 S.E.2d 818 (1998), reversing Thomas v. Diamond Rug & Carpet Mills, 226 Ga. App. 403, 486 S.E.2d 664 (1997). Cited in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Ivey, 250 Ga. App. 181, 549 S.E.2d 471 (2001).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1997–2001 · leading case: Georgia Self-Insurers Guar. Trust Fund v. Thomas, 501 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Georgia Self-Insurers Guar. Trust Fund v. Thomas, 501 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 24× “The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Thomas' claim, concluding that the rebuttable presumption authorized by OCGA § 34-9-17(b)(3) was applicable even though Diamond had not complied with the notice provisions of OCGA § 34-9-414.”

Georgia Pac. Corp. v. Ivey, 549 S.E.2d 471 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 34-9-414, before conducting drug tests, an employer must, just once, give all employees a notice of testing, and give all employees a written policy containing certain specific information regarding the employer’s policy on substance abuse.”

Thomas v. Diamond Rug & Carpet Mills, 486 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “This discretionary appeal poses the question whether an employee of a self-insured employer, who has not established a drug-free workplace program, may be denied workers’ compensation benefits under OCGA § 34-9-17 (b) (3) based on refusal to submit to a drug test following an…”

— 34-9-414(a)(1)(B) — 1 case

Georgia Self-Insurers Guar. Trust Fund v. Thomas, 501 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. 1998). “The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Thomas' claim, concluding that the rebuttable presumption authorized by OCGA § 34-9-17(b)(3) was applicable even though Diamond had not complied with the notice provisions of OCGA § 34-9-414.”

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.