Nevada Revises Employment Drug Testing Practices
Posted by: Megan Murphy
August 6, 2019
On June 5, 2019, Governor Sisolak signed Assembly Bill 132, an Act revising Chapter 613 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) governing employment practices. Under the revised law, employers are prohibited from denying employment to a prospective employee because of the presence of marijuana in a pre-employment drug screening test, with certain exceptions.
- Location: Nevada
- Legislation: AB 132
- Type: Drug Testing
- Effective Date: January 1, 2020
- Prohibits the denial of employment because of the presence of marijuana in a drug screening.
- Provides employees the right to submit to an additional screening test to rebut the results of the initial drug screening test.
Which employers are affected?
All employers as defined under Chapter 613 of the NRS.
What is prohibited in the law?
- Employers are prohibited from failing or refusing to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a drug screening test (blood, urine, hair, or oral fluids) and the results of the screening test revealed the presence of marijuana.
- If an employer requires an employee to submit to a screening test within the first 30 days of employment, the employee shall have the right to submit to an additional screening test, at his or her own expense, to rebut the results of the initial screening test. The employer shall accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of such a screening test.
Are there any exceptions?
The drug screening provisions do not apply if the prospective employee is applying for a position as a:
- firefighter, as defined in NRS 450B.071;
- that requires an employee to operate a motor vehicle and for which federal or state law requires the employee to submit to screening tests; or
- that, in the determination of the employer, could adversely affect the safety of others.
An employer does not have to consider the results of an employee’s retest if:
- to the extent that they are inconsistent or otherwise in conflict with the provisions of an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement;
- to the extent that they are inconsistent or otherwise in conflict with the provisions of federal law;
- employment position is funded by a federal grant
Seyfarth Shaw has also provided an overview you may read here.
We recommend you review and discuss with drug testing vendors, Medical Review Officers, and legal counsel your organization’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the changing laws and regulations. For more information regarding recent legislative changes in other states and jurisdictions, visit our Legislative Updates page.
*Please note: The information provided above is strictly for educational purposes. It is not intended to be legal advice, either expressed or implied. Accurate Background recommends that you consult with your legal counsel regarding all employment regulations.