Substantial Compliance in Employer Random Drug‐Testing Pools: Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors

Introduction

This commentary examines the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 11, 2025 decision in Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc. (No. 22‐1599), which clarifies the standard for employer compliance with Iowa Code § 730.5’s random drug‐testing pool requirements. Scott Hampe, a long‐time employee of Charles Gabus Motors (Gabus), filed suit after being selected in a December 2019 unannounced drug test. He alleged the test pool unlawfully included employees not “scheduled to be at work” or “excused” under policy, in violation of § 730.5(8)(a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment to Gabus and the testing vendor, Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing; the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; and the Supreme Court of Iowa granted further review solely on the pool composition claim. The key issue: whether Gabus “substantially complied” with the statute’s strict pool‐composition rules, or whether its procedure fell short and entitled Hampe to relief.

Summary of the Judgment

The Iowa Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice May, held:

Gabus failed to strictly comply with § 730.5(8)(a)(1) because it included its entire active workforce in the pool, without excluding employees not scheduled or excused under policy.
Under the Court’s prior precedents (notably Dix v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc.), § 730.5 requires only substantial compliance, not strict literal compliance.
Gabus made no effort to exclude unscheduled or excused employees from its pool, so it did not even substantially comply.
Hampe proved he was “aggrieved” by the violation: because the pool was improperly composed, there is no way to know if he would have been selected if the statute had been followed.
Summary judgment for Hampe on the pooling claim was appropriate. The case is reversed on that issue and remanded for relief under § 730.5(15)(a)(1). Other claims are mooted by this holding.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Dix v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 961 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2021): Established that random drug‐testing under § 730.5 requires substantial compliance—“compliance in respect to essential matters necessary to assure the reasonable objectives of the statute.” Dix upheld a test where scheduling shifts and no‐shows caused some employees to avoid testing, finding the employer’s effort to compile a mostly accurate list sufficient.
Sims v. NCI Holding Corp., 759 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2009): Defined substantial compliance in the drug‐testing context as meeting the statute’s objectives even if not every technical requirement is met.
Harrison v. Employee Appeal Board, 659 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 2003): Emphasized that random testing under § 730.5 is allowed only under “severely circumscribed conditions,” highlighting the need to prevent employer abuse.
Woods v. Charles Gabus Ford, Inc., 962 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2021): Clarified the “aggrievement” requirement—an employee must show the violation prevented an informed choice or otherwise caused actual harm.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Statutory Text & Purpose
§ 730.5(8)(a)(1) permits unannounced tests of employees “selected from” a pool comprising “the entire employee population” at a work site except those who are not scheduled to work or have been excused. The plain purpose, the Court observed, is to prevent targeted or discriminatory testing and ensure randomness.
Substantial vs. Strict Compliance
In Dix, the Court explained that strict compliance is not required; employers need only substantially comply—i.e., take the steps essential to achieve the statute’s protections. Employers’ random methods, even if imperfect, pass muster if they demonstrate a good‐faith effort to follow the statute’s requirements.
Application to Facts
Unlike the Dix employer, Gabus made no effort to exclude unscheduled or excused employees from its master list. It simply provided the testing vendor with a list of all active employees and then, on the test day, skipped any not physically present. The Court held this was insufficient: the statute focuses exclusively on the pool composition, not subsequent exclusions. Because Gabus did nothing to construct a proper pool, it cannot claim substantial compliance.

“Aggrievement” and Relief

Under § 730.5(15)(a)(1), only an “aggrieved employee” may recover. Relying on Woods, the Court found that Hampe was aggrieved because he was singled out by a process that did not comply with the statute—and there is no way to know whether a compliant pool would have included him. Summary judgment in favor of Hampe on his pooling claim was thus warranted, and the case was remanded to determine damages and other relief.

Impact on Future Cases and Employers

Employers must now ensure their random‐testing pools are constructed in strict conformity with § 730.5(8)(a)(1), excluding unscheduled or excused employees before any list generation.
Post‐generation exclusion of absent employees is not a substitute for pre‐generation pool compliance.
Human resources departments should document efforts to compile compliant pools—listing who is scheduled, who is excused, and why—to establish substantial compliance.
Future litigants will likely challenge pool composition early in litigation; employers should consider routine audits of their testing programs and vendor communications.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance: Strict compliance means meeting every technical requirement exactly as written.
Substantial compliance means taking the essential steps to fulfill the statute’s purpose—even if minor errors occur—so long as the core protections are preserved.
Aggrieved Employee: An employee who can show they were harmed or deprived of an important right by the employer’s violation. It is not enough that the employer slipped up; the employee must demonstrate actual prejudice.
Random Selection Pool: The list of employees from which names are randomly drawn for testing. Under § 730.5, certain categories of employees must be excluded before random names are generated.

Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors underscores that an employer’s compliance with random drug‐testing statutes hinges on proper preparation of the testing pool. Post hoc exclusions of absent employees will not cure a pool that was never constructed in accordance with § 730.5(8)(a)(1). Going forward, employers must document and demonstrate concrete efforts to exclude unscheduled or excused employees before generating a random list, thereby securing the benefits of substantial compliance and avoiding liability. This ruling will shape how Iowa employers (and their testing vendors) design and execute random drug‐testing programs, ensuring that the legislature’s narrow allowances for privacy‐sensitive testing are respected in practice.