Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 181.955 (2026)

Construction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Freedom to collectively bargain.

Sections 181.950 to 181.954 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 or a cannabis testing policy that meets or exceeds, and does not otherwise conflict with, the minimum standards and requirements for employee protection provided in those sections.

Subd. 2.Employee protections under existing collective bargaining agreements.

Sections 181.950 to 181.954 shall not be construed to interfere with or diminish any employee protections relating to drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing already provided under collective bargaining agreements in effect on the effective date of those sections that exceed the minimum standards and requirements for employee protection provided in those sections.

Subd. 3.Professional athletes.

Sections 181.950 to 181.954 shall not be construed to interfere with the operation of a drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing program if:

(1) the drug and alcohol testing program is permitted under a contract between the employer and employees; and

(2) the covered employees are employed as professional athletes.

Upon request of the commissioner of labor and industry, the exclusive representative of the employees and the employer shall certify to the commissioner of labor and industry that the drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing program permitted under the contract should operate without interference from the sections specified in this subdivision. This subdivision must not be construed to create an exemption from controlled substance crimes in chapter 152.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2016 · leading case: Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc. v. Sherburne Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc. v. Sherburne Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “the requirement of Minn.Stat. § 181.955, subd. 1- (2004), that bargaining be permitted over a drug-testing policy that “meets or exceeds” the minimum statutory requirements, did not apply when the policy did not differ meaningfully from the statute.”

Geffre v. Metro. Council, 174 F. Supp. 2d 962 (D. Minnesota 2001). · cites it 8× “From this, plaintiffs argue that random drug testing of non-safety-sensitive classified employees violates Minnesota law, particularly the Minnesota Constitution and Minn.Stat. § 181.955. 1 Plaintiffs’ argument fails, because the Court has already dismissed their § 181.”

Shawn Olson v. Push, Inc., 640 F. App'x 567 (8th Cir. 2016). “See Minn.Stat. § 181.955 (DATWA sets forth minimum standards and requirements for employee protection relating to employment-related drug testing); see also Rohmiller v.”

Visnovec v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 754 F. Supp. 142 (D. Minnesota 1990). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 181.955, Subd. 2 (emphasis added).”

Kevin Williams v. Nat'l Football League (8th Cir. 2009). “Minn. Stat. § 181.955 subdiv. 1. -13- DATWA lists minimum informational requirements for the contents of drug policies.”

— Minn. Stat. § 181.955(4) — 1 case

Geffre v. Metro. Council, 174 F. Supp. 2d 962 (D. Minnesota 2001). “From this, plaintiffs argue that random drug testing of non-safety-sensitive classified employees violates Minnesota law, particularly the Minnesota Constitution and Minn.Stat. § 181.955. 1 Plaintiffs’ argument fails, because the Court has already dismissed their § 181.”

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.