Celebrating 40 Years of Compliance Leadership
On February 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling impacting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drug testing oversight. The court decided that the FAA cannot solely rely on an employer’s determination of a drug test refusal; while private employers manage the initial testing process, the FAA is required (per its own internal operating procedures) to assess an employer’s determination rather than accept it automatically.
The judicial decision stems from a March 2024 incident involving a commercial pilot. The pilot was traveling in Vietnam when his employer selected him for a random drug test in Seattle, Washington. When the pilot informed his employer that a severe medical condition prevented his immediate travel back to the United States, the airline classified his inability to appear as a drug test refusal.
The airline company then reported this refusal to the federal Pilot Records Database (PRD) (a mandatory government registry), which automatically restricted the pilot from performing safety-sensitive duties. In other words, the pilot could no longer do his job.
The employer's decision triggered severe consequences for the pilot before any government agency reviewed the facts: The pilot lost his job and his ability to work in his profession based entirely on the employer's classification. In their ruling, the appeals court noted that giving private employers unchecked authority over federal certifications raises serious legal and constitutional concerns. A large part of their ruling centered around a major constitutional concept known as the Private Nondelegation Doctrine (PND).
According to this doctrine, federal agencies cannot cede their regulatory authority to private businesses, including the exclusive power to enforce laws. The agencies also cannot outsource that final enforcement authority to a private employer, including airlines.
According to the court, when the private airline made its final, unreviewable decision that triggered a federal penalty for the pilot, it effectively acted like a government agency. Allowing an employer to make the final legal determination on a screening refusal without government oversight raised serious constitutional concerns for the court under the PND.
When an employee registers a refusal to test, federal rules mandate that they enter a specific Return-to-Duty Process initiated by the employer, before returning to any safety-sensitive duties. As part of this process, the employee undergoes evaluation by a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) and completes prescribed treatment.
In this specific case, the FAA initially directed the pilot to this process without investigating the employer's refusal claim (in other words, the agency treated the employer's initial classification as an irreversible final decision). The court ruled that the FAA acted arbitrarily by skipping its independent review phase; the FAA must now review all employer refusal claims.
This federal ruling indicates that employer determinations regarding test refusals will face closer federal scrutiny: Private employers make the initial call, but the FAA will now review the factual merits of those calls.
In light of this ruling, FAA program managers should place renewed emphasis on documenting every step of their testing procedures to prepare for federal review.
DISA Global Solutions provides comprehensive platforms for organizing your testing data and communication logs. When the FAA reviews your refusal determination, our centralized system will give you the necessary evidence that you need for federal audits.
DISA also offers dedicated support for evaluating and updating your internal testing protocols. We can help you align your internal frameworks with the latest interpretations of federal regulations and help you prevent inaccurate reporting to federal databases.
If you are an aviation employer and are potentially facing a refusal to test, reach out to DISA Global Solutions’ Return-to-Duty team for assistance with SAP referral and Return-to-Duty support.
Under Department of Transportation rules, a drug test refusal happens when an employee intentionally obstructs the screening process; often, this refusal includes failing to appear at the collection site, leaving the facility prematurely, or providing an adulterated specimen.
The employer removes the employee from safety sensitive functions and refers them to a qualified SAP. (Removal and referral is mandated, internal processes and/or employee behavior dictates the rest.)
Employers make the initial refusal determination based on contemporaneous facts (collection site information, timestamps, and employee communications) consistent with 49 CFR Part 40. Recent D.C. Circuit case law indicates that when the FAA takes action based on an alleged refusal, the FAA must apply its own review process rather than relying solely on the employer’s determination.
Aviation employers should treat a refusal as a high-stakes classification and only apply it when the facts clearly meet a specific Part 40 refusal criterion.
Key considerations:
While the specific U.S. Court of Appeals decision targeted the FAA, because the core constitutional issue involves unchecked employer authority over federal penalties, all DOT-regulated businesses should consider how this precedent might impact their overarching testing programs.
DISA Global Solutions aims to provide accurate and informative content for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The reader retains full responsibility for the use of the information contained herein. Always consult with a professional or legal expert.
March 09, 2026
7
min read
