41 U.S.C. § 8101

Definitions and construction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Definitions.—In this chapter:(1)Contractor.—The term “contractor” means the department, division, or other unit of a person responsible for the performance under the contract.(2)Controlled substance.—The term “controlled substance” means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 812).(3)Conviction.—The term “conviction” means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere), an imposition of sentence, or both, by a judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of Federal or State criminal drug statutes.(4)Criminal drug statute.—The term “criminal drug statute” means a criminal statute involving manufacture, distribution, dispensation, use, or possession of a controlled substance.(5)Drug-free workplace.—The term “drug-free workplace” means a site of an entity—(A) for the performance of work done in connection with a specific contract or grant described in section 8102 or 8103 of this title; and(B) at which employees of the entity are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in accordance with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181).(6)Employee.—The term “employee” means the employee of a contractor or grantee directly engaged in the performance of work pursuant to the contract or grant described in section 8102 or 8103 of this title.(7)Federal agency.—The term “Federal agency” means an agency as defined in section 552(f) of title 5.(8)Grantee.—The term “grantee” means the department, division, or other unit of a person responsible for the performance under the grant.(b)Construction.—This chapter does not require law enforcement agencies to comply with this chapter if the head of the agency determines it would be inappropriate in connection with the agency’s undercover operations.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3826.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
8101(a)(1)	41:706(7).	Pub. L. 100–690, title V, §§ 5157, 5158, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4308.
8101(a)(2)	41:706(3).
8101(a)(3)	41:706(4).
8101(a)(4)	41:706(5).
8101(a)(5)	41:706(1).
8101(a)(6)	41:706(2).
8101(a)(7)	41:706(8).
8101(a)(8)	41:706(6).
8101(b)	41:707.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: State v. Connecticut Employees Union Indep., 142 A.3d 1122 (Conn. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Connecticut Employees Union Indep., 142 A.3d 1122 (Conn. 2016). “The state's drug-free workplace policy explicitly references the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (federal act), 41 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., which requires any state agency that receives federal funding to certify that it will maintain a drug-free workplace.”

State v. Connecticut Employees Union Indep. (Conn. 2016). “The state’s drug-free workplace policy explicitly ref- erences the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (federal act), 41 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., which requires any state agency that receives federal funding to certify that it will maintain a drug-free workplace.”

Houston Area Saf. Council, Inc. & Psychemedics Corp. v. Guillermo M. Mendez (Tex. 2023). “4304 (codified as amended at 41 U.S.C. §§ 8101–8106) (instituting requirements for federal contractors and grant recipients); Tex.”

Thomas v. Saul (E.D. Mo. 2021). “) See also Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 41 U.S.C. § 8101 , et seq. Plaintiff claims that due to drug- free workplace policies, she would be unable to possess and take her OxyContin at work.”

Henson v. Daimler Truck North Am. LLC (D.N.J. 2023). “]” 41 U.S.C. § 8101 (a). We note that the statute focuses specifically on preventing the use of drugs in the workplace, a concern which is reflected in the express language of CREAMMA: under the statute, employees may still be disciplined for using cannabis in the workplace.”

Dangles v. Dart, 2026 IL App (1st) 250520-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “¶ 27 Before concluding, we note that defendant argues that its zero-tolerance drug policy was in accordance with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 ( 41 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. (2022)) and the Illinois Drug Free Workplace Act (30 ILCS 580/1 et seq.”

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.