Texas lawmakers approve drug tests for unemployment applicants
Texas lawmakers on Wednesday approved a bill that would require drug testing for some of those seeking unemployment benefits, even as state Democrats stymied a similar measure covering welfare applicants.
May 23, 2013 at 08:48 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Texas lawmakers on Wednesday approved a bill that would require drug testing for some of those seeking unemployment benefits, even as state Democrats stymied a similar measure covering welfare applicants.
Under the successful bill, first-time unemployment applicants who are looking for jobs in fields that require drug testing (e.g. trucking, aviation or hazardous material industries) must undergo a preliminary written screening test. If the test shows that an applicant is likely to be a drug user, that person must then pass a drug test in order to receive their unemployment benefits.
Applicants who fail the drug test can either enroll in a drug treatment program, which would make them eligible for unemployment, or reapply for benefits after 30 days.
The bill's sponsor, House Republican Brandon Creighton, argues that the measure will help to ensure that unemployment benefits are available “to help those that need [them] the most,” while encouraging more drug users to seek treatment.
But Democratic opponents, including Rep. Chris Turner, say that there is no evidence that those applying for unemployment benefits are any more likely to be drug users. “Losing a job is a very traumatic thing,” Turner said on the House floor, according to Thomson Reuters. “Aren't we just adding insult to injury in what is a very traumatic situation already?”
Democrats did manage to scuttle a similar bill intended for welfare applicants by stalling the vote for more than two hours, until after a midnight deadline had passed. The current legislative session ends on Monday.
The failed proposal would have required applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program would have undergone a similar drug screening, followed by a mandatory drug test if the screening showed “good cause to suspect” drug use. One positive drug test would lead to a loss of benefits for six months, a second positive test would result in a one-year loss and a third positive test would lead to a lifetime ban.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that eight states—Kansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah—have passed laws that deal with drug screening and testing for those seeking public assistance, although some of those measures have met with legal challenges.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of drugs—legal and otherwise—see:
FDA appeals “morning after” pill ruling
No wider recall for glass-tainted generic Lipitor
California Supreme Court upholds local medical marijuana bans
Cheat Sheet: The in-house lawyer's guide to marijuana legalization
Texas lawmakers on Wednesday approved a bill that would require drug testing for some of those seeking unemployment benefits, even as state Democrats stymied a similar measure covering welfare applicants.
Under the successful bill, first-time unemployment applicants who are looking for jobs in fields that require drug testing (e.g. trucking, aviation or hazardous material industries) must undergo a preliminary written screening test. If the test shows that an applicant is likely to be a drug user, that person must then pass a drug test in order to receive their unemployment benefits.
Applicants who fail the drug test can either enroll in a drug treatment program, which would make them eligible for unemployment, or reapply for benefits after 30 days.
The bill's sponsor, House Republican Brandon Creighton, argues that the measure will help to ensure that unemployment benefits are available “to help those that need [them] the most,” while encouraging more drug users to seek treatment.
But Democratic opponents, including Rep. Chris Turner, say that there is no evidence that those applying for unemployment benefits are any more likely to be drug users. “Losing a job is a very traumatic thing,” Turner said on the House floor, according to Thomson Reuters. “Aren't we just adding insult to injury in what is a very traumatic situation already?”
Democrats did manage to scuttle a similar bill intended for welfare applicants by stalling the vote for more than two hours, until after a midnight deadline had passed. The current legislative session ends on Monday.
The failed proposal would have required applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program would have undergone a similar drug screening, followed by a mandatory drug test if the screening showed “good cause to suspect” drug use. One positive drug test would lead to a loss of benefits for six months, a second positive test would result in a one-year loss and a third positive test would lead to a lifetime ban.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that eight states—Kansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah—have passed laws that deal with drug screening and testing for those seeking public assistance, although some of those measures have met with legal challenges.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of drugs—legal and otherwise—see:
FDA appeals “morning after” pill ruling
No wider recall for glass-tainted generic Lipitor
California Supreme Court upholds local medical marijuana bans
Cheat Sheet: The in-house lawyer's guide to marijuana legalization
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250