Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 19-0002

Lucas Woods
v.
Charles Gabus Ford, Inc.

Plaintiff, who was terminated from his job for failing an employee drug test, appealed from a district court ruling dismissing his action against his former employer for alleged violations of the drug-testing statute, Iowa Code section 730.5. Plaintiff contended the court erred by not finding defendant had violated section 730.5 by (1) neglecting to send its certified mailing of the posttest notice return receipt requested, (2) failing to establish it complied with supervisory personnel training, and (3) omitting the cost of a confirmatory drug test in its notice to plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed on the third ground and remanded for further proceedings. Defendant seeks further review.

County:
Polk
Trial Court Case No.:
LACL139373

Resister

Lucas Woods

Applicants

Charles Gabus Ford, Inc.

Attorneys for Resister

Harley C. Erbe

Attorneys for Applicants

Steven H. Shindler
James R. Hinchliff

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

15-15-5

Oct 14, 2020 1:30 PM

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
19-0002
Date Published:
Jun 25, 2021

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
19-0002
Date Published:
Jan 09, 2020
Summary

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (10 pages)

           Charles Gabus Ford fired Lucas Woods after he failed an employee drug test.  Woods filed a petition at law asserting he was wrongfully terminated because Gabus Ford violated Iowa Code section 730.5 (2017)—Iowa’s private sector employee drug-and-alcohol-testing statute.  On appeal from dismissal of his petition, Woods asserts Gabus Ford did not: (1) send its certified mailing of the post-test notice return receipt requested as required in subsection (7)(j)(1); (2) establish it complied with the supervisory personnel training described in subsection (9)(h); and (3) include in its notice to Woods the cost of a confirmatory drug test as required in subsection (7)(j)(1).  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error in Woods’s first two claims.  But we agree Gabus Ford’s failure to include the cost of the confirmatory drug test in its post-test notice to Woods violated the statute.  So we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

View archived opinions from prior to November 2017

© 2022 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.