Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 181.952 (2026)

Policy Contents; Prior Written Notice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Contents of the policy.

An employer's drug and alcohol and cannabis testing policy must, at a minimum, set forth the following information:

(1) the employees or job applicants subject to testing under the policy;

(2) the circumstances under which drug or alcohol and cannabis testing may be requested or required;

(3) the right of an employee or job applicant to refuse to undergo drug and alcohol and cannabis testing and the consequences of refusal;

(4) any disciplinary or other adverse personnel action that may be taken based on a confirmatory test verifying a positive test result on an initial screening test;

(5) the right of an employee or job applicant to explain a positive test result on a confirmatory test or request and pay for a confirmatory retest; and

(6) any other appeal procedures available.

Subd. 2.Notice.

An employer shall provide written notice of its drug and alcohol testing and cannabis testing policy to all affected employees upon adoption of the policy, to a previously nonaffected employee upon transfer to an affected position under the policy, and to a job applicant upon hire and before any testing of the applicant if the job offer is made contingent on the applicant passing drug and alcohol testing. An employer shall also post notice in an appropriate and conspicuous location on the employer's premises that the employer has adopted a drug and alcohol testing and cannabis testing policy and that copies of the policy are available for inspection during regular business hours by its employees or job applicants in the employer's personnel office or other suitable locations.

Subd. 3.Cannabis work rules.

(a) Unless otherwise provided by state or federal law, an employer is not required to permit or accommodate cannabis flower, cannabis product, lower-potency hemp edible, or hemp-derived consumer product use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer while an employee is working or while an employee is on the employer's premises or operating the employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment.

(b) An employer may only enact and enforce written work rules prohibiting cannabis flower, cannabis product, lower-potency hemp edible, and hemp-derived consumer product use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer while an employee, is working or while an employee is on the employer's premises or operating the employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment in a written policy that contains the minimum information required by this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2012 · leading case: Williams v. Nat'l Football League, 582 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2009).
Williams v. Nat'l Football League, 582 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2009). “Minn.Stat. § 181.952 subdiv. l(l)-(6). 9 .”
Kise v. Prod. Design & Eng'g, Inc., 453 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 181.952, subd. 1. Kise alleges that because PD & E only requires testing of employees whom it knows were injured and obtained treatment on the same day, and this limitation period is not disclosed in the policy, the policy fails to satisfy the disclosure…”
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 822 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “951; employers are required to have a drug-and-aleohol-testing policy that complies with section 181.952, subdivision 1; employers are required to provide employees with notice of their testing policies that complies with section 181.”
Lewis v. Ashland, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 181.952 subdiv. 2. The employer must also provide a form to employees “on which to acknowledge that the employee or job applicant has seen the employer’s drug and alcohol testing policy.”
Kevin Williams v. Nat'l Football League (8th Cir. 2009). “Minn. Stat. § 181.952 subdiv. 1(1)-(6). -14- that DATWA “shall not be construed to limit the parties to a collective bargaining agreement from bargaining and agreeing with respect to a drug and alcohol testing policy that meets or exceeds, and does not otherwise conflict with,…”
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.