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:
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:
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
© 2024 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 AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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