On a recent summer morning at the state Department of Labor in Wethersfield, Stephen Lattanzio, principal attorney with DOL’s Office of Program Policy, schooled about a dozen human resource managers and other professionals about the complexities of Connecticut’s drug-testing laws.
Get Instant Access to This Article
Subscribe to Hartford Business Journal and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
- Critical Hartford and Connecticut business news updated daily.
- Immediate access to all subscriber-only content on our website.
- Bi-weekly print or digital editions of our award-winning publication.
- Special bonus issues like the Hartford Book of Lists.
- Exclusive ticket prize draws for our in-person events.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
On a recent summer morning at the state Department of Labor in Wethersfield, Stephen Lattanzio, principal attorney with DOL's Office of Program Policy, schooled about a dozen human resource managers and other professionals about the complexities of Connecticut's drug-testing laws.
It's a seminar he typically gives once a year. True-or-false questions flash across a screen to quiz attendees on their drug-testing knowledge. Several had counterintuitive answers, perhaps none more than the following:
“True or false? It's reasonable and legal to test an employee for drugs/alcohol after he or she is involved in an accident at work.”
The answer is false, thanks to a 1994 federal court case in which a Home Depot employee successfully sued the retailer for forcing him to take a drug test after a workplace accident.
The judge in the case, Doyon v. Home Depot, ruled that an accident alone did not amount to reasonable suspicion of drug use.
The crux of Lattanzio's message is caution. Just as an impaired employee could cause a costly accident, drug testing an employee when it's not permitted by state law could cost an employer.
“Avoiding a lawsuit is the big concern always,” Lattanzio said.
DOL has purview specifically over urine tests (not hair or saliva tests), and it can fine an employer a modest $300 if it finds the company violated an employee's legal rights.
But that relatively tiny fine isn't what matters.
“It may provide corroboration to a claim for an improper testing civil suit,” he said. “It's the weight that finding will carry in court.”
The advice from the DOL lawyer? Hire an attorney and make sure your company's policies measure up legally.
