Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—D. Minn.: Lawsuit moves forward against employer for firing employee based on him failing another potential employer’s drug test, (May 21, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

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 that the employer violated several provisions of the Minnesota Drug Testing Act. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint.

Applicable to this scenario? The first count of the complaint alleged that the employer violated Minnesota Drug Testing Act section 181.953 by discharging the employee without first providing him with the opportunity to take a confirmatory retest or seek rehabilitative counseling. The court noted that neither party identified any binding or persuasive authority regarding whether the protections of the Drug Testing Act applied when an employer fires an employee for failing a drug test administered by a different employer. Thus, the count found that the employee’s construction of the statute supported his claim for relief that was, at a minimum, plausible. Further, the court held that federal law did not preempt the Minnesota Drug Testing Act. Accordingly, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss Count I.

Retaliation. Next, the complaint alleged that the employer violated the Drug Testing Act’s provision that an employer could not discharge an employee for “asserting rights and remedies provided in sections 181.950 to 181.956” of the Drug Testing Act. The court stated that the employee’s allegations, “while thin,” were sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. The court thus denied the employer’s motion to dismiss this count as well.

Procedural violations. The third count of the complaint alleged that the employer failed to follow required procedures under the Drug Testing Act in administering previous drug tests during the plaintiff’s employment at Pomp’s Tire. The employee alleged that the employer’s written drug testing policy failed to include information required by the Drug Testing Act, and on at least one occasion the employer conducted drug or alcohol testing without providing the employee with written notice of the test results, in violation of section 181.953 of the Drug Testing Act. The court rejected the employer’s motion to dismiss Count 3, ruling that the employee alleged facts sufficient to state a plausible claim that the employer’s drug testing procedures did not comply with the Drug Testing Act.

The district court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s complaint.

The case is No. 25-3478 (JRT/DJF).

Judge: Tunheim, J.

Attorneys: Brian P. Stanley (RWI Law) for Jason Kubat. Ellen Anne Brinkman and Madison E.L. Hanson (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for Pomp’s Tire Service, Inc.

Companies: Pomp’s Tire Service, Inc.

Cases: StateLawClaims Discharge Cannabis CoverageLiability MinnesotaNews