§ 31-51x — Drug testing: Reasonable suspicion required. Random tests.

(a) No employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test unless the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol which adversely affects or could adversely affect such employee's job performance. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, an employer may require an employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test on a random basis if (1) such test is authorized under federal law, (2) the employee serves in an occupation which has been designated as a high-risk or safety-sensitive occupation pursuant to regulations adopted by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to chapter 54, or is employed to operate a school bus, as defined in section 14-275 , or a student transportation vehicle, as defined in section 14-212 , or (3) the urinalysis is conducted as part of an employee assistance program sponsored or authorized by the employer in which the employee voluntarily participates.

Legislative History

(P.A. 87-551, S. 6, 7; P.A. 91-271, S. 2; P.A. 07-224, S. 4; P.A. 16-169, S. 18.) History: P.A. 91-271 amended Subsec. (a) to require the labor commissioner to adopt regulations specifying circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion; (Revisor's note: In 1997 references to “Commissioner of Labor” were changed editorially by the Revisors to “Labor Commissioner” for consistency with customary statutory usage); P.A. 07-224 amended Subsec. (b)(2) by adding provision re employee employed to operate a school bus or student transportation vehicle, effective July 1, 2007; P.A. 16-169 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provision re Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations re circumstances presumed to give rise to reasonable suspicion. Cited. 243 C. 66. Subsec. (a): Issue of voluntary testing under statute should be resolved in manner consistent with federal fourth amendment constitutional law; plaintiff seen as voluntarily consenting to testing in case in which he was motivated by fear that he would be dismissed for attempting to remove employer's property from the plant without authorization. 244 C. 598.