The court noted that neither party identified any binding or persuasive authority regarding whether the protections of the Minnesota Drug Testing Act applied when an employer fires an employee for failing a drug test administered by a different employer.
A federal district court in Minesota held that an employee’s claims against his employer relating to a failed drug test may move forward. In response to the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s complaint, the court noted that the complaint arguably alleged that the employer violated the Minnesota Drug Testing Act forbidding termination: (1) without a confirmatory drug test; (2) for asserting his rights under the Minnesota Drug Testing Act; and (3) for failing to follow required procedures under the Drug Testing Act (Kubat v. Pomp’s Tire Service, Inc., No. 25-3478 (JRT/DJF) (D. Minn. May 19, 2026)).
The employee worked in sales for Pomp’s Tire Service, Inc. (“Pomp’s Tire”, or “the employer”) until he was discharged for failing a drug test administered by a different employer. One of his job duties was operating a pickup truck that had a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds. Although the employee holds a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”), his job duties for Pomp’s Tire did not require him to use it.
After the employee applied for a second job as a truck driver with another company and failed its required drug test, Pomp’s Tire terminated his employment at Pomp’s Tire. The employee filed a complaint alleging...
CHICAGO — Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is fighting deportation in a Chicago hearing after being accused of lying on immigration paperwork and supporting terrorism....