La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CHAPTER 14. DRUG TESTING

PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1001. Definitions

           As used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings contained herein unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

           (1) "CAP-FDT-certified laboratory" means a laboratory certified for forensic hair drug testing by the College of American Pathologists.

           (2) "CAP-FUDT-certified laboratory" means a laboratory certified for forensic urine drug testing by the College of American Pathologists.

           (3) "Employee" means any person, paid or unpaid, in the service of an employer, as defined in this Section.

           (4) "Employer" means any person, firm, or corporation, including any governmental entity, that has one or more workers or operators employed, or individuals performing service, in the same business, or in or about the same establishment, under any contract of hire or service, expressed or implied, oral or written; however, "employer" for the purposes of this Chapter shall not include any person, firm, or corporation that is subject to a federally mandated drug testing program. For the purposes of this Chapter, an employee who is a person, firm, or corporation that contracts or subcontracts with a principal need not be considered, in whole or in part, to be an employee of such principal.

           (5) "Medical review officer" means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by employer or testing entity's drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's positive test result together with his medical history and any other relevant biomedical information.

           (6) "Negative employment consequences" means any action taken by an employer or an employer's agent which negatively impacts an employee's or prospective employee's employment status. Examples of "negative employment consequences" include but are not limited to termination of employment, refusal to hire, or altered conditions of employment such as counseling, probation, suspension, and demotion.

           (7) "Prospective employee" means any person who has made application to an employer, whether written or oral, to become an employee.

           (8) "SAMHSA" means the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

           (9) "SAMHSA-certified laboratory" means a laboratory certified for forensic drug testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

           (10) "SAMHSA guidelines" means the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs as published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), revised on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908), further revised on September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118), and any further revised guidelines issued by SAMHSA.

           (11) "Sample" means urine, blood, saliva, or hair.

           (12) "Screening laboratory" means any building, place, or facility in which operations and procedures for the biological, serological, immunological, chemical, immuno-hematological, or other examination of materials derived from the human body are performed for the purpose of drug testing and which is not SAMHSA-certified or CAP-FUDT-certified for forensic urine drug testing and if the following apply to the drug testing of said "screening laboratory":

           (a) If, as a result of such testing, mandatory or discretionary negative employment consequences will not be rendered to the individual.

           (b) Drug testing is performed for any or all of the following classes of drugs: marijuana, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, and phencyclidine.

           (13) "Screening test" means an immunoassay screen to eliminate "negative" specimens from further consideration.

           (14) "Split sample" means one specimen from one individual that is separated into two specimen containers.

           Acts 1990, No. 1036, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Acts 2004, No. 901, §1, eff July 12, 2004; Acts 2015, No. 74, §1, eff. August 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
Aubrey v. Sch. Bd. of Lafayette Par., 148 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “R.S. 49:1001, et seg. (West Supp.1997). .”
Williams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 49:1001; N.C. Gen.Stat.”
Richard v. Lafayette Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 8 So. 3d 509 (La. 2009). · cites it 4× “[10] LSA-R.S. 49:1001 provides, in pertinent part: (4) "Medical review officer" means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by employer or testing entity's drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has…”
Arriola v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 809 So. 2d 932 (La. 2002). “803(6) reads as follows: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of regularly conducted business activity.”
Russo v. Int'l Drug Detection, L.L.C., 250 So. 3d 1100 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “This Chapter does not preclude an employer or an employer's agent from utilizing a USFDA-cleared specimen testing method that uses a sample as defined in R.S. 49:1001 provided that such sample is processed in a laboratory with a SAMHSA, CAP-FUDT, or CAP-FDT certification using…”
Phelps v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n, 611 So. 2d 739 (La. Ct. App. 1992). “R.S. 49:1001, in 1990 that are designed to protect individual constitutional rights.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 836 So. 2d 9 (La. 2002). “R.S. 49:1001 et seq. and the employment at-will doctrine.”
CEG Welding Supply, Inc. v. Moore, 723 So. 2d 524 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “…and medical hearing officer appears to be also in compliance with Louisiana drug testing procedures outlined in La. R.S. 49:1001, et seq.”
Price v. City of Bossier, 680 So. 2d 1226 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “R.S. 49:1001, et seq., and the statutorily incorporated NIDA guidelines.”
DeSalvo v. Dep't of Police, 141 So. 3d 929 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 49:1001(5), 1005 A. As a matter of law, these test results cannot support the termination of Mr.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(1)(7): 1 case
Richard v. Lafayette Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 8 So. 3d 509 (La. 2009). “[10] LSA-R.S. 49:1001 provides, in pertinent part: (4) "Medical review officer" means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by employer or testing entity's drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(10): 3 cases
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
Price v. City of Bossier, 680 So. 2d 1226 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “R.S. 49:1001, et seq., and the statutorily incorporated NIDA guidelines.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(14): 2 cases
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(1X7): 1 case
Richard v. Lafayette Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 8 So. 3d 509 (La. 2009). “[10] LSA-R.S. 49:1001 provides, in pertinent part: (4) "Medical review officer" means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by employer or testing entity's drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(2): 1 case
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(20): 3 cases
Arriola v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 809 So. 2d 932 (La. 2002). “803(6) reads as follows: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of regularly conducted business activity.”
Aubrey v. Sch. Bd. of Lafayette Par., 148 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 1998). “R.S. 49:1001, et seg. (West Supp.1997). .”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(21): 1 case
Aubrey v. Sch. Bd. of Lafayette Par., 148 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 1998). “R.S. 49:1001, et seg. (West Supp.1997). .”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(5): 3 cases
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
DeSalvo v. Dep't of Police, 141 So. 3d 929 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 49:1001(5), 1005 A. As a matter of law, these test results cannot support the termination of Mr.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(6): 2 cases
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(8): 1 case
Brady Bass v. DISA Global Solutions, Inc., Convenient Care, L.L.C. d/b/a Total Occupational Med., Randy B. Barnett, D.O., & Psychemedics Corp. (La. Ct. App. 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 49:1001(9): 2 cases
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 853 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] In opposing the motion, Sanchez contended that LSA-R.S. 49:1001 et seq., the statutory scheme governing employment-related random drug testing ("the drug-testing statute"), provided a statutory basis for his claim for damages.”
Sanchez v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 860 So. 2d 277 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “However, the Louisiana Supreme Court then granted Georgia Gulf's writ application and remanded the matter to this court with instructions "to address the relationship between the drug testing requirements set forth in La.”
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.