Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 551 (2026)

Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 551 through 563 of this title shall be known and may be cited as the "Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act". Added by Laws 1993, c. 355, § 1, emerg. eff. June 10, 1993. Amended by Laws 2011, c. 180, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2006 OK 42 (Okla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2006 OK 42 (Okla. 2006). · cites it 2× “As reformulated, 1 the question is: Whether the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (Testing Act), 40 O.S.2001 § 551 et seq. and the administrative rules promulgated pursuant thereto, allow an employer, using an approved evidential breath testing (EBT)…”

Mcintosh v. Watkins, 441 P.3d 1094 (Okla. 2019). “3d 518 , 525-27 (answering for the first time a certified federal question about whether the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, 40 O.S. §§ 551 -565, would equate breathalyzer tests with "laboratory services" for which an employer must use a licensed testing…”

Romero v. City of Miami, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (N.D. Okla. 2014). “Second, they argue that the *1333 claims should be dismissed because Romero bases the duty allegedly breached on Oklahoma’s Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (the “SWDAT” or the “Act”), Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 551 et seq., which applies only to employers.”

Leisure Vill. Operating, LLC. v. Prof'l Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Okla. 2011). · cites it 2× “Mike alleged ProLab was a party to the workplace drug test conducted by Leisure Village and violated the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, (“Testing Act”), 40 O.S. § 551, et seq. Ms. Mike further alleged gross negligence under Oklahoma common law.”

Mike v. Prof'l Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (N.D. Okla. 2011). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges ProLab was a party to the workplace drug test and violated the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, (“Testing Act”), 40 O.S. § 551, et seq. Plaintiff further alleges gross negligence under the Oklahoma common law.”

R & R Eng'g Co. v. Bd. of Review OESC, Oklahoma Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 322 P.3d 471 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014). “Employer adopted a “Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy” on November 1, 2007, pursuant to 40 O.S.2001 § 551, et ■seq., Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act.”

Manna v. Phillips 66 Co. (10th Cir. 2020). “at §§ 553(B), 554. The Act permits employers to terminate employees who refuse to be tested or who test positive for drugs or alcohol.”

Potts v. Am. Castings, LLC (N.D. Okla. 2021). “The remaining basis, the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (“DAT Act”), Okla. Stat. tit. 40, §§ 551–563, requires more discussion, but it also fails to sustain a Burk tort claim as a matter of law.”

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.