Frequently Asked Questions

An observed collection is a specific drug test procedure where a trained observer directly watches the donor's urine sample. This is crucial to prevent tampering or substitution of the urine specimen. The observer ensures the sample's integrity by following strict guidelines:

• Instructing the donor to raise their clothing above the waist and lower their pants and underpants to mid-thigh to check for any tampering devices.
• Watching the urine go from the donor's body into the collection container without losing sight of the container.
• Ensuring the donor does not turn away or conceal the collection process.
• Observed collections are typically required when there is a suspicion of specimen tampering, following a prior invalid test result, or as part of a return-to-duty or follow-up testing program. The observer must be the same gender as the donor, and all procedures must respect the donor's privacy while maintaining the collection's integrity.

Proper training in drug and alcohol testing helps collectors understand when and how to conduct observed collections correctly, maintaining the integrity of the testing process and complying with regulatory requirements. This knowledge helps avoid errors and ensures that all procedures are followed precisely, protecting both the donor's rights and the accuracy of the test results.

The contact details provided are for HHS-certified laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITFs) that meet the minimum standards for conducting drug and specimen validity tests on urine and oral fluid specimens. While these details can be used to contact the labs, it's essential to verify with each lab if these are the correct contacts for setting up a lab account to submit samples. View the SAMHSA Certified Lab List or contact SAMSHA directly by email at [email protected] or Phone at 240-276-2600.

To ensure accuracy, please follow these steps:

• Contact the lab directly using the provided phone numbers or addresses.
• Inquire specifically about setting up a lab account to submit samples.
• Verify if there are any additional requirements or specific contacts within the lab for account setup and sample submission.
• Always check the most recent updates or contact the labs to confirm the current and correct certifications for your specific needs.

The regularly updated list of certified Labs can also be found here.

Reasonable Suspicion Training in Canada, commonly called RST training, is a specialized compliance course designed to educate supervisors, managers, and employees on identifying and appropriately responding to signs of substance abuse and impairment in the workplace. This training provides individuals with the skills needed to observe, document, and address situations where an employee may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, ensuring that any actions taken are based on reasonable and legally defensible suspicion.

This training type is required to maintain a safe and productive work environment, and by learning to recognize the signs of impairment, supervisors can take timely and appropriate actions to prevent accidents, injuries, and other safety incidents that may arise from substance abuse. It also helps comply with workplace safety regulations and policies, protecting employees and the organization from potential legal liabilities.

Reasonable Suspicion Training contributes significantly to workplace safety by:

• Preventing Accidents and Injuries: Trained supervisors can identify impairment before it leads to dangerous situations, reducing the risk of accidents and injuries.
• Maintaining Productivity: By promptly addressing substance abuse issues, workplaces can maintain higher productivity and efficiency.
• Promoting a Safe Work Culture: It fosters an environment where safety is prioritized, and employees know that substance abuse will not be tolerated.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Ensures the organization adheres to safety regulations and avoids potential legal consequences.
  Similarity to the US Requirements

Reasonable Suspicion Training for Canadian employees is similar to the training required in the United States. Both countries emphasize the importance of this training in ensuring workplace safety and compliance with respective regulations. The principles of observing, documenting, and acting upon signs of impairment are consistent across both jurisdictions.

By investing in quality training from a reputable provider, organizations can be confident that their staff is well-prepared to maintain a safe and compliant workplace. A reputable training provider offers an approved curriculum that covers all necessary aspects of recognizing and handling reasonable suspicion situations. They employ experienced instructors who understand the nuances of substance abuse and workplace safety, ensuring that the training meets all regulatory requirements. Additionally, reputable providers offer ongoing support and resources even after the training session is completed, further enhancing the effectiveness and sustainability of the training program.

Often referred to as sexual harassment training, it educates learners on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in the workplace, including sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination. The training covers legal definitions, real-world examples, company policies, reporting procedures, and strategies for preventing and addressing such issues.

Workplace harassment training is essential for all employees across industries, including managers, supervisors, and business owners. HR professionals typically facilitate or organize this training to ensure compliance with legal regulations and company policies. It is usually required during onboarding and repeated annually to maintain compliance and reinforce employee awareness.

Workplace harassment training can be delivered in various formats, such as in-person workshops, virtual webinars, or online learning platforms (LMS), ensuring that employees receive consistent education regardless of location.

States Requiring Specific Harassment Training

• California: Employers with five or more employees must provide workplace harassment training under AB 1825 (two hours every two years for supervisors) and SB 1343 (one hour every two years for non-supervisory employees).
• New York: All employers must provide annual training with specific components outlined by the New York State Human Rights Law.
• Connecticut: Under the Time’s Up Act, employers with three or more employees must provide two hours of training for supervisors, and mandatory training for all employees is provided every ten years.
• Delaware: Employers with 50 or more employees must provide training to all employees and supervisors under Delaware’s sexual harassment law.
• Maine: All employers must train employees and supervisors, with additional requirements for those with 15 or more employees.
• Illinois: Under the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act, all employers must provide annual sexual harassment prevention training to employees and supervisors.
• Washington: Specific industries, such as hospitality and retail, have distinct state requirements for harassment training.
• Oregon: Employers with one or more employees must provide training under Oregon Senate Bill 726.

Why Workplace Harassment Training Matters

Workplace harassment training creates a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment by helping employees recognize and prevent harassment, bullying, and discrimination. It also ensures employers meet legal obligations, particularly in states like California and New York, where non-compliance can lead to fines or lawsuits.

An effective training program must address current legal standards and provide practical, actionable guidance. It should clarify employee responsibilities, equip them to handle difficult situations and minimize legal risks. By reducing the likelihood of harassment, quality training protects the organization, lowers legal exposure, and fosters a respectful workplace culture.

Recent developments suggest a possible shift in how federal authorities treat marijuana within the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), responsible for classifying substances into various schedules, will hold formal hearings beginning in January 2025. 

These hearings will assess whether marijuana should remain in its current category, which places it among substances considered to have no accepted medical use and a high risk for misuse, or whether it should be relocated to a category (commonly referred to as Schedule III) that acknowledges recognized medical applications.

For decades, the federal stance on marijuana has remained relatively fixed. The possibility of adjusting its status at this level is noteworthy and indicates that perceptions regarding marijuana have evolved. While the outcome of these hearings remains uncertain, their existence demonstrates that prior assumptions are being reexamined in light of emerging research and changing public sentiment.

Historical Context: How We Got Here

The Controlled Substances Act and Schedule I Classification

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), establishing a framework for regulating drugs based on their medical utility and abuse potential. Marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance, the most restrictive category, alongside heroin and LSD. This designation indicated that marijuana was considered to have:

• A high potential for abuse,
• No accepted medical use in treatment, and
• A lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

This classification has remained controversial for over 50 years, as research has emerged suggesting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis in treating conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and nausea from chemotherapy.
The Fight for Rescheduling

Since the 1970s, advocates have pushed for marijuana to be removed or rescheduled within the CSA. Key milestones include:

• 1972 NORML Petition: The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) filed a petition to reschedule marijuana. After 22 years of litigation, the DEA rejected the petition in 1994, stating that marijuana lacked a "currently" accepted medical use."
• 1996 State Legalization Efforts: California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana with Proposition 215. Over the next two decades, dozens of states followed suit, creating a patchwork of state laws inconsistent with federal policy.
• 2011 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis Petition: This petition brought renewed attention to marijuana's status, but the DEA rejected it in 2016, citing insufficient evidence of medical use.
• Public and Scientific Shifts: By the late 2010s, public opinion had dramatically shifted. A Pew Research Center survey in 2021 found that 91% of Americans supported either medical or complete legalization of marijuana. Simultaneously, research began to challenge earlier views about marijuana and its medical efficacy.

In the Biden Administration's October 2022, President Biden called on the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Attorney General to review marijuana. This marked a significant turning point, as the HHS subsequently recommended rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III in 2023. This recommendation acknowledged that:

• Marijuana has an accepted medical use,
• Its potential for abuse is lower than Schedule I or II drugs, and
• Its abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence.
• The DEA initiated formal rulemaking in 2024, culminating in the upcoming 2025 hearings.

The 2025 Hearings

Witness testimony is scheduled from January 22 through the week of March 3, 2025, occurring every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. These hearings aim to gather factual evidence and expert opinions to determine whether marijuana should be reclassified as a Schedule III substance. This reclassification would:

• Acknowledge its medical uses,
• Reduce barriers to research and
• Subject marijuana to less stringent regulatory controls.

However, the DEA remains unclear, and the process will likely involve extensive stakeholder debate. Rescheduling marijuana has significant implications for professionals in workplace compliance, healthcare, and law enforcement. Continuing education is essential for adapting to these changes and ensuring the effective implementation of policies.

Implications for Employers

Should the DEA adopt a new stance on marijuana, employers and professionals in fields related to workplace safety and regulatory compliance may need to reevaluate their current policies. For example:

• Policy Revisions: Employers rely on federal schedules to guide their internal substance policies. Altering marijuana policies may prompt employers to update their testing protocols, clarify permissible use under medical guidelines, and ensure adherence to state and federal regulations.
• Interpreting Conflicting Standards: Many states have already introduced varying degrees of legalized marijuana use, creating a complex compliance environment. If federal rules shift, organizations may need to reconcile previously conflicting positions, ensuring that workplace policies align with evolving requirements.
• Staying Informed: As studies on marijuana and applications continue, professionals engaged in compliance, human resources, and legal guidance must remain knowledgeable about changes. A comprehensive understanding will help them address new challenges as the regulatory landscape evolves.
• Professional Education: Marijuana's rescheduling underscores the need for ongoing education for legal and compliance professionals. Staying updated on regulations, science, and policies ensures lawful, informed workplace practices. Regular training and certifications help professionals who maintain employ drug-free workplaces or perform drug testing adapt and provide practical guidance in a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.

What Lies Ahead?

The DEA represents a period of reconsideration for federal marijuana policy. Their conclusion, expected in early 2025, may confirm existing standards, result in a new classification, or prompt additional inquiry. In each scenario, the implications extend beyond law enforcement. They touch upon how employers manage personnel, how medical professionals advise patients, and how the public interprets marijuana use's benefits and potential drawbacks.

In the coming months, stakeholders, from corporate counsel to the human resources team, would be well advised to monitor these developments. As events unfold, the ability to adapt policies and practices to reflect updated federal guidelines will prove essential. The hearings mark a turning point and serve as a reminder that what was once considered settled law may now be subject to reconsideration in an evolving regulatory climate.

Many people wonder how to become a “certified” drug screen collector, but the correct industry term is a qualified collector. It’s important to note that neither the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor its sub-agencies offer direct certification or qualification.

Those interested in becoming qualified collectors must receive training from an instructor who has completed a recognized train-the-trainer program. Be cautious of providers claiming to offer “certification” without meeting these standards, as such programs often provide only a certificate of completion rather than a legitimate qualification.

To achieve qualified status, an individual must complete initial proficiency and mock collections. Initial proficiency focuses on learning essential procedures, including proper specimen handling and accurate chain-of-custody documentation. Mock collections, also known as dry mocks, allow trainees to practice these skills in realistic scenarios, gaining hands-on experience under professional supervision before working with actual donors. Without proper training, a collector risks producing inaccurate results, facing serious legal issues, and damaging professional credibility.

It’s also important to understand the differences between DOT and non-DOT collections. DOT collections must adhere to strict federal guidelines, such as testing commercial truck drivers to ensure public safety. In contrast, non-DOT tests align with internal company policies, industry standards, and state-specific regulations. Depending on career goals, various training pathways exist, whether working for an established facility or starting a new drug testing business (stationary or mobile).

When selecting a training provider, choose one that develops its programs in consultation with subject matter experts and attorneys. While training costs vary, beware of providers advertising “affordable” courses that often have outdated material and lack substance. The goal of becoming qualified is to learn, not merely to obtain a piece of paper. By investing in a high-quality training program, a prospective qualified collector will be better equipped to perform collections correctly, maintain compliance, and uphold professional standards.

DNA collection is the process of gathering DNA samples, most often using a simple cheek swab, for paternity, relationship, or other types of testing. A certified collector verifies each person's identity, obtains proper consent, follows strict chain-of-custody rules, and packages the samples carefully to avoid mix-ups or contamination.

Legal DNA tests are designed for court use and require a neutral third-party collector, photo ID verification, witnessed collection, and complete documentation of the chain of custody. Curiosity or personal tests, sometimes called peace-of-mind tests, are for private use only, and their results cannot be used in court.

For example, a legal DNA collection test might be needed in a child custody dispute or an immigration case in which the court requires proof of a biological relationship. A curiosity is used when someone wants to confirm paternity for personal reasons without involving the legal system.

People often need legal testing for court cases, child support, custody battles, inheritance claims, or official government requirements. To become fully qualified to collect court-admissible samples, collectors need proper training and certification from a reputable provider.

Collectors need to be properly qualified through quality training on procedures that must be followed exactly to produce reliable samples. Without proper training and qualification, collections can be challenged or thrown out in court, samples may be contaminated or invalid, and the collector could face legal or professional issues.

Many training providers offer DNA paternity testing training at different prices, and it's important to enroll in a reputable program that covers real-world scenarios, proper collection procedures, and documentation. This training will help you defend testing and collection procedures during court questioning or cross-examination.

No. Currently, there is no situation in which a What is a Medical Review Officer? (MRO) can verify a laboratory confirmed marijuana positive drug test result as negative when an employee claims the positive came from using a state-licensed marijuana product.

Even after rescheduling, state-dispensed marijuana does not constitute an FDA-approved drug. Without FDA approval for a controlled substance, it cannot be prescribed. A legitimate medical explanation requires the use of a legally prescribed controlled substance in compliance with Federal laws governing such a prescription (49 CFR sections 40.137(a) and 40.141(b)).

Although the MRO may be presented with documentation such as state-issued medical marijuana cards, physician recommendations, certifications, or dispensary records or receipts, these documents do not satisfy Part 40 requirements for a legitimate medical explanation. Marijuana use under state marijuana programs or other non-prescription sources does not qualify as a legitimate medical explanation under 49 CFR section 40.137(a). In addition, marijuana use is not compatible with safety-sensitive functions.

Here are some practical examples. A commercial truck driver in Colorado holds a state medical marijuana card and uses a licensed dispensary product for pain management. After a random DOT urine test returns positive for marijuana metabolites, the driver provides the card and purchase receipts to the MRO. The MRO cannot accept this as a legitimate medical explanation and must report the result as positive, triggering DOT return-to-duty requirements.

Practical Use Cases

• Commercial Truck Driver: A driver in Colorado holds a state medical marijuana card and uses a licensed dispensary product for pain management. After a random DOT urine test returns positive for marijuana metabolites, the driver provides the card and purchase receipts to the MRO. The MRO cannot accept this as a legitimate medical explanation and must report the result as positive, triggering DOT return-to-duty requirements. 
• Transit Bus Operator: An employee in a safety-sensitive public transit role tests positive after recreational use of state-legal cannabis. The employee submits a physician's recommendation and dispensary records. Under Part 40, these documents are insufficient; the MRO verifies the result as positive because state programs do not meet federal prescription standards.
• Pipeline Maintenance Technician: Following a post-accident test, a technician claims the positive came from legally purchased edibles in a recreational state. Even with proof of state-compliant purchase, the MRO has no authority to overturn the laboratory positive, as marijuana remains incompatible with safety-sensitive duties under federal rules.

Even with proof of state-compliant purchase, the MRO has no authority to overturn the laboratory positive as marijuana remains incompatible with safety-sensitive duties under federal rules.

Here you go:

 
A Medical Review Officer (MRO) is the final checkpoint in the drug testing process. They help ensure that results are accurate, legally sound, and fair to all parties involved. MROs are licensed physicians who have received specialized training in substance abuse disorders and the technical aspects of drug testing. In the United States, MROs must meet certification requirements set by organizations such as the American Association of Medical Review Officers (AAMRO) or the Medical Review Officer Certification Council (MROCC).

The MRO's primary role is to review and interpret laboratory drug test results before they are reported to an employer. Key responsibilities include:

• Reviewing laboratory results: The MRO receives all non-negative drug test results directly from the certified laboratory.
• Contacting donors: Before reporting a positive result, the MRO contacts the donor (the person tested) to determine whether there is a legitimate medical explanation, such as a valid prescription.
• Verifying prescriptions: The MRO evaluates any prescription or medical documentation provided by the donor to determine if it is a valid, lawful explanation for the result.
• Making final determinations: The MRO issues a final result of Positive, Negative, Canceled, or Refusal to Test based on all available information.
• Reporting results: The MRO reports the verified, final result to the designated employer representative (DER).
• Protecting donor privacy: MROs handle sensitive medical information and are bound by confidentiality standards.

Many think specimen collectors are MROs, but that is a serious misconception. Specimen collectors gather and process the specimens, but they do not interpret results, and that's where the MRO comes in. 

For DOT-regulated programs, having a qualified MRO in the workflow is required by federal law (49 CFR Part 40), and for good reason. An MRO bridges the gap between a raw laboratory finding and a legally defensible final result by giving donors the opportunity to explain a positive before it's ever reported to an employer, reviewing the chain of custody form to ensure the collection was conducted properly, and determining whether a flawed or rejected specimen should be canceled and a retest ordered.

We are growing, and the name should match the work.

We started as DrugTestingCourses.com, then became WorkTraining.com, and we are now becoming LearnLaws.com. As our course catalog and subscriber base have grown, we need a brand that better reflects our purpose: helping employers, trainers, and learners understand the law and stay compliant.

We will continue to focus on courses for drug and alcohol testing, driver safety training, and the drug testing industry. That core work is not going away.

Same ownership. Same management. Same team.

This move also lets us put more advanced AI superintelligence into our system so we can better support our customers and their learners. You will see a new website that is more intuitive and helps you find what you need faster. The backend stays the same at first and will improve significantly over the next several months.

This change will not affect how we operate. You do not need to take any action. Your login stays the same. Use the same email and password you already use. Your account, certificates, and courses will move with us over the next 45 days. You do not need to create a new account.

What is changing with EaslerLMS pricing?

• We will continue to offer course-based pricing. That option comes first and stays in place, and we are not increasing pricing.
• We are also streamlining EaslerLMS to one platform plan at $2,000 per month and removing the other two subscription tiers. All current subscribers will be grandfathered.
• The $2,000/month platform plan is best for employers that need a learning management system and employee management tools, as well as law firms, compliance companies, and independent trainers ready to offer, manage, and resell professional training.

Thank you for your support. You helped us grow from a focused drug testing training business into a broader training platform, and your support allows us to keep adding more courses and better tools for you and your learners.

We are grateful to have you with us as we take this next step.