Getting Clear on Compiling Random Drug Testing Pools in Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court recently clarified in Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc. d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines that a compliant random drug testing program under Iowa law requires the exclusion of those who are not scheduled to work the day of the testing from the pool of employees who could be selected. 

Iowa has one of the most technical drug testing laws in the country. It allows unannounced random testing of:

• The entire employee population at a particular worksite of the employer, except for 1) employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, 2) employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is conducted because of the status of the employee, or 3) employees who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer’s work policy prior to the time the testing is announced to employees.
• The entire full-time active employee population at a particular worksite, except for 1) employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, 2) employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is to be conducted because of the status of the employee, or 3) employees who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer’s working policy.
• All employees at a particular worksite who are in a pool of employees in a safety-sensitive position and who are scheduled to be at work at the time testing is conducted, other than 1) employees not subject to testing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, 2) employees who are not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing is to be conducted, or 3) employees who have been excused from work pursuant to the employer’s work policy prior to the time the testing is announced to employees.

In the case before the Iowa Supreme Court, the employer used a random testing pool that consisted of all employees. The employer did not exclude employees who were not scheduled to be at work at the time the testing was conducted or who were excused from work pursuant to the employer’s policy. Instead, the employer had a list of alternate employees who could be tested if selected employees were not at work on the day the testing was conducted.

The Iowa Supreme Court held that this practice did not substantially comply with the law. Strict compliance with the law is not required, it explained, but substantial compliance is required. The court held that the employer did not substantially comply with the law when it made no attempt to exclude employees who were not scheduled to be at work or because they had been excused pursuant to an employer policy.

Focusing on the plain language of the statute, the court stated that it is the way the random pool is constructed that matters, even if, as a practical matter, it is difficult to comply with the statute’s requirements given the fluid circumstances of today’s workplace.

Kathryn J. Russo is an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Long Island, N.Y. © 2025 Jackson Lewis. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission.