Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 181.954 (2026)

Privacy, Confidentiality, And Privilege Safeguards

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

Subdivision 1.Privacy limitations.

A laboratory may only disclose to the employer test result data regarding the presence or absence of drugs, cannabis, alcohol, or their metabolites in a sample tested.

Subd. 2.Confidentiality limitations.

Test result reports and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing or cannabis testing process are, with respect to private sector employees and job applicants, private and confidential information, and, with respect to public sector employees and job applicants, private data on individuals as that phrase is defined in chapter 13, and may not be disclosed by an employer or laboratory to another employer or to a third-party individual, governmental agency, or private organization without the written consent of the employee or job applicant tested.

Subd. 3.Exceptions to privacy and confidentiality disclosure limitations.

Notwithstanding subdivisions 1 and 2, evidence of a positive test result on a confirmatory test may be: (1) used in an arbitration proceeding pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, an administrative hearing under chapter 43A or other applicable state or local law, or a judicial proceeding, provided that information is relevant to the hearing or proceeding; (2) disclosed to any federal agency or other unit of the United States government as required under federal law, regulation, or order, or in accordance with compliance requirements of a federal government contract; and (3) disclosed to a substance abuse treatment facility for the purpose of evaluation or treatment of the employee.

Subd. 4.Privilege.

Positive test results from an employer drug or alcohol testing or cannabis testing program may not be used as evidence in a criminal action against the employee or job applicant tested.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2011 · leading case: Kise v. Prod. Design & Eng'g, Inc., 453 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Kise v. Prod. Design & Eng'g, Inc., 453 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 181.954. PD & E asserts that Kise is raising this issue for the first time on appeal and that it was neither briefed nor argued below.”
Williams v. Nat'l Football League, 794 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 181.954, subd. 2 (emphasis added).”
United States v. Norman Lyle Prouse, United States of Am. v. Robert John Kirchner, United States of Am. v. Joseph Wesley Balzer, 945 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1991). “” Minn. StatAnn. § 181.954, subd. 4 (West Supp.”
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.