The Florida Statutes provide that individuals
will be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation under
certain circumstances. Specifically, providing:
If an individual is discharged from employment for drug use as
evidenced by a positive, confirmed drug test as provided in
paragraph (1)(d), or is rejected for offered employment because of a
positive, confirmed drug test as provided in paragraph (2)(c), test
results and chain of custody documentation provided to the employer
by a licensed and approved drug-testing laboratory will be
self-authenticating and admissible in unemployment compensation
hearings, and such evidence will create a rebuttable presumption
that the individual used, or was using, controlled substances,
subject to the following conditions:
(a). To qualify for the presumption described in this subsection, an
employer must have implemented a drug-free workplace program under
§§ 440.101 and 440.102, and must submit proof that the
employer has qualified for the insurance discounts provided under
§ 627.0915, as certified by the insurance carrier or
self-insurance unit. In lieu thereof, an employer who does not fit
the definition of ‘employer’ in § 440.102 may qualify for the presumption provided that the employer
is in compliance with equivalent or more stringent drug-testing
standards established by federal law or regulation. (emphasis
provided)
(b). Only laboratories licensed and approved as provided in
§ 440.102(9), or as provided by equivalent or more stringent
licensing requirements established by federal law or regulation may
perform such tests.
One court found that an employer failed to establish a chain of
custody with respect to the employee’s specimens and because the
employer, which failed to establish certification required by
Florida Statute §§ 443.101(11) and
627.0915 was not entitled to the presumption contained in
§ 443.101(11). The employer did not produce a certificate or
other evidence of the company qualifying for insurance discounts and
could not verify the testing lab’s qualifications.
The court noted that the employer has the burden of proving that the
act complained of constitute “misconduct” sufficient to disqualify
the employee from receiving benefits and that the unemployment
compensation statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the
employee where the employee is disqualified from receiving those
benefits. The court held that the former employee was not guilty of
misconduct and was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
