Skip to main content

February 1, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 32

National Law Review
  • Login
  • Mdn
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

60

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

January 31, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • New Texas Bill Would Provide Qualified Release Relief To Trustees Who... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • USCIS Implements Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Admissibility by: Mark Wu
  • Bankruptcy Court Doors Swing Open For Cannabis Companies, But Just... by: Mark A. Salzberg
  • Court Rules in Favor of Manufacturers in 340B Contract Pharmacy Case by: Emily J. Cook
  • The Office of the United States Trade Representative Releases 2022... by: Aaron Wininger
  • The FDA Gets Blunt: “New Regulatory Pathway for CBD is Needed” by: Daniel S. Zinsmaster and Ashley E. Durner
  • Revisiting the Extraterritorial Reach of Equal Employment Opportunity... by: Natalie C. Groot and Danielle M. Bereznay
  • Delaware Chancery Court Issues Delman Decision Potentially Increasing... by: Mark D. Wood and Richard H. Zelichov
  • Illinois Legislature Passes Broad Paid Leave Bill; Governor Intends... by: John F. Kuenstler and Douglas M. Oldham
  • Nota Bene Episode 158: The U.S.-China Trade War: How It Started and... by: J. Scott Maberry and Reid Whitten
  • New OSHA Enforcement Guidance Promises Steeper Penalties for Employers by: Melanie L. Paul and Joshua M. Henderson
  • Antitrust Risks of ESG Initiatives: Rhetoric vs. Reality by: Joel Mitnick
  • Old North State Report – Jan. 30, 2023 by: George M. Teague
  • DOL Announces Expansion of OSHA's Authority to Issue Increased... by: David C. Lindsay and Leann M. Walsh
  • GSA Issues Request for Information on Carbon Pollution-Free... by: Shaunna E. Bailey
  • Court Deep Sixes Johnson & Johnson Bad Faith Baby Powder... by: Michael G. Nicolella
  • Louisiana Insurance Department Issues Cease and Desist Orders to a... by: Steven L. Imber and Justin T. Liby
  • Has the Bloom Come Off the Rose? It May Be Time to Pull the Plug on... by: Ladd Hirsch
  • SEC Delays Enforcement of Rule 15c2-11 Compliance by: Chris DiAngelo and Anna-Liza B. Harris
  • FDA Issues Final and Draft Guidance Documents Regarding Food Allergen... by: Tracey T. Gonzalez and Lauren Petrin
  • What is a Disaster Preparedness Plan? by: John S. Prisco
  • Northern Long-Eared Bat “Uplisted” to Endangered Status by: William S. "Buddy" Cox III
  • A Summary of FinCEN’s Uniform Beneficial Ownership Information... by: Erin Reeves McGinnis and Ethan Rosenfeld
  • California Begins Formal Rulemaking on Changes to its Recycling and... by: Sheila A. Millar and Jean-Cyril Walker
  • The Transformation in Behavioral Digital Health Services by: Arushi Pandya and Sara Helene Shanti
  • Home Health and Hospice – A Look at Value-Based Initiatives Underway... by: Christine Burke Worthen
  • Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments: January 2023 by: Bryan B. House and Lisa M. Noller
  • Hybrid Purchase-Price Mechanisms – Where Heavens Collide? by: Rutger Sterk
  • CEQ Issues Updated NEPA Guidance on GHG Emissions by: Rachael L. Lipinski and Jenna R. Mandell-Rice
  • Revisiting the Attorney Client Privilege in the Wake of the Supreme... by: Evan M. Piercey
  • Washington District Court Reversal on MTCA Liability for Smokestack... by: David C. Weber and Augustus E. Winkes
  • U.S. Appeals Court Partially Revives Trump-Era Union Election Rule by: Robert T. Dumbacher and Rebekah K. Herman
  • Third Circuit Dismisses Talc Bankruptcy by: Gregory G. Hesse and Brandon Bell
  • Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights January 2023 by: Memrie M. Fortenberry
  • SECURE 2.0 Act Legislation Includes Significant Changes to Individual... by: Michael A. Hart
  • Happy Data Privacy Day from the California AG: CCPA Violation Warning... by: Cynthia J. Larose
  • Forensic Examination of Computers in Discovery Requires Showing of... by: Kathryn C. Cole
  • 2023 Outlook: The Impact of Interest Rate Hikes on the Real Estate... by: David L. Dubrow
  • 100 Industry Organizations Request Extension of Comment Period on FTC... by: Peter A. Steinmeyer and Erik W. Weibust
  • Proper Representation is Worth the Dough: Jung v. Fred’s Bagels LLC by: Francisco F. Guzmán Andrade
  • Non-material Damages in Mexico. by: Armando Arenas and Alejandro Luna Fandiño
  • Data Privacy and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by: Abraham Díaz and Gustavo A. Alcocer
  • ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CMS GUIDELINES? If You Purchase... by: Jenniffer Cabrera
  • Continued At-Will Employment Sufficient Consideration for Restrictive... by: Justin E. Theriault
  • NIST Releases New Framework for Managing AI and Promoting Trustworthy... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • FDA Issues Orphan Drug Exclusivity Policy That Could Be a Catalyst... by: James A. Boiani and Delia A. Deschaine
  • New Law Requires Illinois Employers to Provide Paid Leave for Any... by: Peyton Demith
  • FDA Issues Procedural Notice on Front-of-Package Labeling Research by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • SECURE 2.0 Includes PBGC Premium Relief… for Some Plans by: Justin S Alex and Heather Monte
  • A New Normal? Omnibus Bill Extends High Deductible Health Plan... by: Jesse T. Foley and Katrina E. McCann
  • DOE Publishes New Strategy for Plastics Innovation by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • Telephone and Texting Compliance News: Litigation Update — Third... by: Joshua Briones and Esteban Morales
  • Losing the Keys to the Kingdom – How Key Personnel Unavailability Can... by: Anne Bluth Perry and Adam A. Bartolanzo
  • EPA Proposes to Bar Manufacturing and Processing of 300 PFAS Assumed... by: Thomas C. Berger and Gregory A. Clark
  • Are Medical Diagnostic Methods Patent Ineligible by Convention?:... by: Peter Giunta and Melissa M. Haulcomb
  • This Week in 340B: January 24 – 30, 2023 by: Emily J. Cook and Reuben Bank
  • Weekly Bankruptcy Alert January 30 2023 by: Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights
  • EUON Publishes Nanopinion on Study of the EU Market for Nanomaterials by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • Weekly IRS Roundup January 23 – January 27, 2023 by: Sarah M. Raben
  • Telecom Alert:$100L NAL Over USF Filings; E-Rate Tribal Participation... by: Jaimy "Sindy" Alarcon and Jim Baller

January 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • News For Veteran-Owned Small Businesses – SDVOSB and VOSB... by: Emily S. Theriault and David S. Gallacher
  • Telephone and Texting Compliance News: Regulatory Update — Commission... by: Russell H. Fox and Jonathan P. Garvin
  • District of Columbia’s New Human Rights Enhancement Amendment Act... by: D’Ontae D. Sylvertooth and Owen J. Peters
  • Singapore: A Rising Tiger Economy for Startups and Venture Capital in... by: Louis Lehot and Eric Chow
  • Court Granted Mandamus Relief To Order District Court To Abate Trust... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • LET’S TALK TEXTS/SMS: Real Quick Synopsis on the Current TCPA Rules... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • US Executive Branch Update – January 30, 2023 by: Stacy A. Swanson
  • California AG Announces CCPA Enforcement Sweep Aimed at Mobile Apps... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • DOJ Expands Availability of Declinations with Disgorgement for... by: Erin K. Sullivan and Lane M. Webster
  • SCOTUS Cert Recap: SCOTUS Adds Eight Issues To Its Docket, Including... by: Kian Hudson and Lara Langeneckert
  • The New Hart-Scott-Rodino Filing Thresholds: The FTC and Congress... by: Jennifer M. Driscoll
  • Healthcare Industry May be Impacted by FTC Proposed Rule Prohibiting... by: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
  • FTC Announces 2023 Thresholds Under HSR Act and Clayton Act New... by: John R Ingrassia and Timothy E. Burroughs
  • Illinois Enacts New Law to Standardize Local Permitting for Renewable... by: Ryan C. Granholm and Amy Antoniolli
  • Louisiana Appellate Court Finds Nondiscretionary Production Bonus... by: Andrew P. Burnside and Ellen C. Rains
  • Inflation Reduction Act: EPA Invites Stakeholder Input on Grant/... by: Steven G. Barringer and Robert Mangas
  • Annual Reports Coming to Pennsylvania and Other Updates to the... by: W. H. Snyder and David M. Aceto
  • SECURE 2.0: Retirement Plan Rules Get a Makeover! by: Labor and Employment Polsinelli
  • New Year, New Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Employees by: Jacqueline A. Hayduk
  • Movement on CPRA Regulations Expected by: Julia K. Kadish
  • USCIS Announces H-1B Cap Registration Period for March 2023 by: John F. Quill
  • Despite Legal and Other Challenges, Amendments to Delaware’s... by: Lisa R. Stark and Sean M. Jones
  • USCIS Announces Registration Period for the FY 2024 H-1B Cap by: Meagan E. Dziura
  • Amazon’s Most Favored Nations Policies Scrutinized Under Sherman Act by: Christopher E Ondeck and John R Ingrassia
  • Coming to Illinois in 2024 – Paid Leave for Any Reason by: Amanda C. Hibbler
  • Rules Enabling Act Key to New Ninth Circuit Decision on Class... by: Wystan M. Ackerman
  • 2022 Privacy World Year in Review: CCPA by: Kristin L. Bryan and Marisol C. Mork
  • Accountable AI Systems through Risk Management: NIST Creates... by: Amy S. Leopard and Elizabeth M. Boone
  • Are Lawyers Who Author Or Vote For Unconstitutional Laws Subject To... by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • PEOS–The European Perspective by: Paul Callegari and Roberto Podda
  • Did You Hear? The EEOC Issues New Guidance on Auditory Disabilities... by: Joe D'Andrea
  • Congress Codifies Longstanding M&A Broker Exemption from SEC... by: Robert Long and William B. Mack
  • Court Affirms Judgment In Divorce Proceeding That Property Was... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • FDA Announces Important Shift in CBD Products Regulation by: Whitt Steineker and Savannah Kolodziej
  • Update: Reclassification of Northern Long-eared Bat as Endangered... by: Matthew D. Manahan and Lisa A. Gilbreath
  • Anti-Abortion Advocacy Groups’ Challenge to FDA-Approved Abortion... by: Amy K. Dow and Olivia K. Plinio
  • FCC Provides Some Clarity On Healthcare Messages, Indirectly Confirms... by: Douglas A. Grimm and Adam D. Bowser
  • SECURE 2.0 Brings Significant Changes for 403(b) Plans by: Katrina E. McCann and Jay E. Jensen
  • Digital Decision Making: Community Association Board of Directors Can... by: Madeline C. Lipe
  • California AG Announces Investigation of Mobile Apps’ CCPA Compliance by: Gretchen A. Ramos
  • SECURE 2.0 Act Brings Slate of Changes to Employer-Sponsored... by: John D. Arendshorst and Andrea M. Gumushian
  • FDA Finalizes Guidance to Prevent Unsafe Contamination of Animal Feed... by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Outside Tips: SEC Sues Trio for Trading on Equifax Breach by: Peter D. Hutcheon and Jerome F. Gallagher, Jr.
  • Congress Continues to Expand Bank Secrecy Act Whistleblower Program by: Kevin McCart and Rebecca A. Worthington
  • SECURE 2.0 Series Part 7: Matching Contributions Based on Student... by: Joy Napier-Joyce

January 29, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Feds "Hack the Hackers" and Take Down Prolific (and... by: Cynthia J. Larose
  • New York Woman Sentenced for $9.2 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud by: United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
  • Registration for H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions Opens in March (H-1B... by: Kimberly A. Clarke and Nina Thekdi
  • Beltway Buzz, January 27, 2023 by: James J. Plunkett
  • 2022 Delaware Corporate Law Year in Review by: Nathan P. Emeritz and Diane N. Ibrahim

Article By

Catherine A. Cano
Kathryn J. Russo

Jackson Lewis P.C.
Drug and Alcohol Testing Law Advisor Blog
Jackson Lewis Logo

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Labor & Employment
  • Administrative & Regulatory
  • Biotech, Food, Drug
  • Illinois
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Oklahoma
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Check-Up – Are You Ready for 2020?

Friday, December 6, 2019

2020 is on the horizon, and employers must be ready to comply with many new developments in the world of workplace drug and alcohol testing. Here is a summary of significant laws that will take effect in 2020 (and some that have already taken effect):

Illinois Recreational Marijuana Law – The Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act will go into effect on January 1, 2020. The Act will allow anyone over the age of 21 to possess, use, or buy marijuana. More significantly, marijuana will be considered a “lawful product” for purposes of the Illinois Right to Privacy Act, which bars discrimination against employees and applicants for using lawful products off-duty and off of the employer’s premises.

Although marijuana will be considered a “lawful product,” the Act expressly permits employers to conduct “reasonable suspicion” and post-accident drug testing for marijuana, in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, an employer may consider an employee to be impaired or under the influence of cannabis if the employer has a good faith belief that an employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position, including symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of the employee or other, or involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or property; disruption of a production or manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others. If an employer elects to discipline any employee on the basis that the employee is under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the employer must afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination.

While it initially appeared that the Act did not authorize pre-employment marijuana testing or random marijuana testing, the Act was amended on December 4, 2019, to permit employers to drug test for marijuana on all of these tests and to take disciplinary action for positive marijuana test results.

Nevada Law Prohibiting Pre-Employment Marijuana Tests – Effective January 1, 2020, pre-employment drug testing for marijuana is illegal in the state of Nevada. The law does not apply to applicants who apply for positions as firefighters, emergency medical technicians, operators of motor vehicles who are required to submit to drug tests, or other positions that “in the determination of the employer, could adversely affect the safety of others.”

The law does not apply if it conflicts with the provisions of an employment contract or a collective bargaining agreement, or if it is inconsistent with provisions of federal law, and further does not apply to positions funded by a federal grant.

The law further provides that if an employer requires an employee to submit to a drug test within the first 30 days of employment, the employee shall have the right to submit to an additional drug test, at his or her own expense, to rebut the results of the initial test. The employer “shall accept and give appropriate consideration to the result of such a screening test.”

New York City Law Prohibiting Pre-Employment Marijuana Tests – Effective May 10, 2020, the New York City Human Rights Law will prohibit pre-employment marijuana drug tests. The law will not apply to applicants for certain types of jobs, including:

  • Police officers or peace officers, or other jobs with law enforcement or investigative functions at the department of investigation;

  • Positions requiring compliance with Section 3321 of the New York City Building Code or Section 220-h of the Labor Law (pertaining to certain types of construction and maintenance jobs);

  • Any position requiring a commercial driver’s license;

  • Any position requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients or vulnerable persons as defined in Social Services Law Section 488(15) (certain individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities);

  • Any position with the potential to significantly impact the health or safety of employees or members of the public, as determined by (i) the commissioner of citywide administrative services for the classified service of the city of New York, and identified on the website of the department of citywide administrative services or (ii) the chairperson, and identified in regulations promulgated by the commission.

The law specifically does not apply drug testing required by:

  • Any regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation that require pre-employment drug testing, as well as any state or city regulations that adopt the DOT rules;

  • Any contract entered into between the federal government and an employer or any grant of financial assistance from the federal government to an employer that requires drug testing of prospective employees as a condition of receiving the contract or grant;

  • Any federal or state statute, regulation, or order that requires drug testing of prospective employees for purposes of safety or security; or

  • Any applicants whose prospective employer is a party to a valid collective bargaining agreement that specifically addresses the pre-employment drug testing of such applicants.

New Jersey Law Requires Written Notice To Individuals Who Test Positive For Marijuana – In New Jersey, the medical marijuana law was amended in July 2019 to prohibit employment discrimination against medical marijuana users. It is still permissible for New Jersey employers to prohibit marijuana use during work time and on Company premises. However, the law now requires employers to provide written notice to all applicants and employees who test positive for marijuana. The written notice must give the applicant or employee an opportunity to provide a “legitimate medical explanation for the positive test result.” Thereafter, within three working days after the employee or applicant receives the written notice, the employee or applicant may either provide a legitimate medical reason for the positive test result, or may request retesting of the original specimen at the employee or applicant’s expense. The legitimate medical reason may include authorization for medical marijuana use by a health care provider, proof of registration for medical marijuana use, or both.

Oklahoma’s Medical Marijuana Law Was Amended – Oklahoma’s medical marijuana law was amended in August 2019 to clarify certain regulatory aspects of the state’s existing medical marijuana law. Under Oklahoma law, employers cannot refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of the applicant’s or employee’s status as a medical marijuana licensee. Moreover, an employer may not refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of a positive drug test result for marijuana, unless: (1) the applicant or employee is not in possession of a valid medical marijuana license; (2) the licensee possesses, consumes or is under the influence of medical marijuana or medical marijuana product while at the place of employment or during the fulfillment of employment obligations [the law does not define “under the influence”]; or, (3) the position is one involving safety-sensitive job duties. “Safety-sensitive” is defined to mean any job that includes tasks or duties that the employer reasonably believes could affect the safety and health of the employee performing the task or others including, but not limited to, any of the following:

  • The handling, packaging, processing, storage, disposal or transport of hazardous materials;

  • The operation of a motor vehicle, other vehicle, equipment, machinery or power tools;

  • Repairing, maintaining or monitoring the performance or operation of any equipment, machinery or manufacturing process, the malfunction or disruption of which could result in injury or property damage;

  • Performing firefighting duties;

  • The operation, maintenance or oversight of critical services and infrastructure including, but not limited to, electric, gas, and water utilities, power generation or distribution;

  • The extraction, compression, processing, manufacturing, handling, packaging, storage, disposal, treatment or transport of potentially volatile, flammable, combustible materials, elements, chemicals or any other highly regulated component;

  • Dispensing pharmaceuticals;

  • Carrying a firearm; or,

  • Direct patient care or direct child care.

FMCSA Clearinghouse – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Clearinghouse will become operational on January 6, 2020. Beginning on January 6, 2020, FMCSA-covered employers must use the Clearinghouse to report commercial motor vehicle drivers’ drug and alcohol program violations (identified in the final rule). They must also query the Clearinghouse for new hires upon hire and annually for current employees. Employers are required to revise their drug and alcohol testing policies to list the drug and alcohol violations that will be reported to the Clearinghouse.

Oral Fluid Testing Finally Approved by DHHS – After a long wait, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued its Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Using Oral Fluid on October 25, 2019. The Guidelines establish standards for oral fluid drug testing for federal employees and will take effect on January 1, 2020. Because DOT is required to follow the Mandatory Guidelines in developing drug testing programs, we expect all of the DOT operating agencies to implement their own regulations adopting the oral fluid testing Guidelines sometime in 2020. Many employers will welcome oral fluid drug testing, as it is quicker than urine testing, offers less opportunity for adulterating or substituting specimens, and may provide more insight into recent drug use.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 340
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

Latest Legal News & Analysis

New Texas Bill Would Provide Qualified Release Relief To Trustees Who Deliver...
Winstead
USCIS Implements Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Admissibility
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Bankruptcy Court Doors Swing Open For Cannabis Companies, But Just Slightly
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Court Rules in Favor of Manufacturers in 340B Contract Pharmacy Case
McDermott Will & Emery
The Office of the United States Trade Representative Releases 2022 Review of...
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Old North State Report – Jan. 30, 2023
By
Nelson Mullins
DOL Announces Expansion of OSHA's Authority to Issue Increased Instance-by-...
By
K&L Gates
GSA Issues Request for Information on Carbon Pollution-Free Electricity
By
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Court Deep Sixes Johnson & Johnson Bad Faith Baby Powder Bankruptcy – But Not...
By
Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky
Louisiana Insurance Department Issues Cease and Desist Orders to a TPA and the...
By
Polsinelli PC
Has the Bloom Come Off the Rose? It May Be Time to Pull the Plug on Your Private...
By
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Advertisement

Upcoming Legal Education Events

Prepare for 2023: What to Expect in Labor & Employment this Year
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
PCI DSS 4.0: Timelines and Initial Preparation Steps Required for Your Business
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
Labor and Employment Update for Employers: Will Your Employee Agreements Survive Recent Developments?
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
How To…Comply with Obligations to Caregiver Employees
Tuesday, February 7, 2023

About this Author

Catherine A. Cano, Jackson Lewis, Federal Disability Lawyer, Retaliation Matters Attorney
Catherine A. Cano
Associate

Catherine A. Cano is an Associate in the Omaha, Nebraska, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She represents management in all areas of labor and employment law. 

Ms. Cano helps clients navigate state, federal, and local leave and disability laws. Ms. Cano has experience in litigation and arbitration in several areas, including employment discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower claims, and non-competes and unfair competition. Ms. Cano’s practice also includes assisting clients involved in union organization campaigns, collective bargaining,...

[email protected]
402-391-1991
www.jacksonlewis.com
Kathryn J. Russo
Kathryn J. Russo Disability Lawsuits Attorney Jackson Lewis Law firm Alcohol Testing Lawyer
Principal

Kathryn J. Russo is a Principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws.

Ms. Russo assists clients with workplace problems involving drugs and alcohol, and gives advice about compliance with all pertinent drug and alcohol testing laws. She prepares substance abuse policies to comply with all federal drug and alcohol testing regulations (including all agencies of the U.S....

[email protected]
631-247-0404
www.jacksonlewis.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC