Watch Now


Minority and independent truckers challenge hair testing for drugs

Exemption request filed at FMCSA raises debate over testing proposal

Hair test clinic credit JAFW

A drug-screening proposal that would raise the bar for thousands of truck drivers seeking work is getting strong pushback from independent and minority drivers.

An exemption request, filed with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in August by 11 major trucking companies, would effectively require that hair test results used by those companies to screen drivers for drug abuse be reported in the FMCSA’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. Those results would then be available to any trucking company accessing the database for information on driver applicants.

It’s a requirement that large carriers testing hair for drugs as a matter of company policy have been pushing for since the clearinghouse opened in January 2020. But because the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has not yet recognized hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urinalysis, positive hair tests are prohibited from being reported into the clearinghouse.

If the exemption is approved, however, such test results would be allowed into the database for the companies applying for the exemption, which include J.B. Hunt Transport (NASDAQ: JBHT), Schneider National (NYSE: SNDR) and Knight-Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX).


The Trucking Alliance, which represents the 11 carriers applying for the exemption, stated that 61,775 drivers and 64,201 commercial trucks would be affected under the exemption.

Jurisdiction stumbling block courtesy of HHS

Before DOT can promulgate a hair-test rulemaking, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must issue guidelines, which HHS is currently finalizing. But until that happens — or unless there’s a change in oversight — there is little if any chance the carriers’ exemption will be approved. FMCSA acknowledged that problem when it posted the carriers’ application.

“Although FMCSA lacks the statutory authority to grant the Trucking Alliance’s request for exemption until [HHS] has taken certain action, FMCSA requests public comment on the exemption application, as required by statute,” the agency stated.

Presumably FMCSA could still use comments generated by the proposal to help shape and inform a future rule.


Supporters: FMCSA has authority over hair testing

KLLM Transport Services and affiliate Frozen Food Express (KLLM/FFE), which are among the carriers seeking the exemption, argue that FMCSA does in fact has authority to grant the exemption. They note that the agency has the authority to require that employers report to the clearinghouse citations for driving under the influence, regardless of whether the citation leads to a conviction.

“Moreover, hair drug testing is based on science, and is more accurate than other instances in which FMCSA requires ‘actual knowledge’ reporting, such as water cooler talk, witness reports, and/or the possession of drug paraphernalia,” the carriers state.

KLLM/FFE also supports the alliance’s application by providing company drug-testing data using both urinalysis and hair to screen for drugs (see table).

Drug test results compiled by KLLM/FFE, 2021. Source: KLLM-FFE.

“Had our company not utilized hair testing, we would have not identified 508 drivers who failed their hair drug test,” the companies state. “These drivers would have likely been hired to operate commercial vehicles for our company, creating a safety risk for the general public and a safety and liability risk for our company.

“If FMCSA does not grant this exemption, individuals who apply for safety sensitive positions can circumvent KLLM/FFE’s efforts to make the industry safer, by allowing that individual to work for other companies with less strict drug testing procedures.”

Religious opposition to testing hair for drugs

The carriers’ proposal was viewed much differently, however, among groups that constitute a large portion of the trucking industry. One of those groups is the Sikh Coalition and the North American Punjabi Trucking Association, which filed joint comments on the petition.

Sikhism is not only a major world religion but Sikhs represent “tens of thousands” of U.S. truckers, the groups told FMCSA.

Using hair to test for drugs, the groups assert, not only discriminates against Sikhs based on studies showing the potential for certain hair types and colors to be subject to a higher rate of false positives, but also because maintaining uncut hair is a primary means through which most Sikhs practice their faith.


“Sikhs, Punjabis, and other South Asians typically have brown or black hair, and are already disproportionately subject to high rates of bias such as employment discrimination and hate crimes,” the group stated. “Our organizations cannot support initiatives that potentially subject our already vulnerable communities to a greater likelihood of discrimination, particularly given that so many Sikhs and South Asians derive their livelihood from commercial trucking.”

They also point out that while employers generally know not to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, accommodating for religious practices is often overlooked.

“Moreover, employers often fail to accommodate requests for religious accommodation because drug testing (particularly pre-employment) is normally outsourced to third-party laboratories. Third-party techs administering drug testing often fail to recognize that they are acting as agents of the employer, and are normally untrained to respond to requests for religious accommodation.”

The groups underscored their opposition by summarizing a discrimination complaint against J.B. Hunt, one of the carriers seeking the exemption, which was settled in 2016.

Economic disparity for owner-operators, small businesses

Commenters opposing the Trucking Alliance’s petition, including many of the anonymous comments from owner-operators, pointed out that while hair testing may result in more positive test results as noted by supporters, this is not proof of habitual drug use.

“Many individuals have never driven under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, but because a hair test may show traces of a drug like marijuana for weeks, it makes them an ‘abuser’ and greatly inhibits their ability to earn a living,” said Todd Spencer, president and CEO of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, in comments opposing the petition. “This is unjust.”

David Owen, president of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, agreed that allowing hair test reporting into the drug clearinghouse using the carriers’ proposed exemption would “risk the integrity of clearinghouse data and endanger the livelihoods of professional drivers who have appropriately taken drugs in the past and who have never been impaired and unfit to operate a heavy vehicle at duty time.”

Longer term, Owen contends, adopting the hair test method would be a higher cost burden for smaller carriers, given that urinalysis tests generally cost half as much as hair tests ($45 vs. $100). Small carriers, he said, would be forced to underwrite the costs of altering the testing infrastructure to accommodate hair testing. “That hard cost remains unknown in that the entire protocol would change or expand,” according to Owen.

“Training, collection, certification, and the duties of a medical review officer would have to be redone based on new regulations. Ultimately, dual systems would be necessary, ensuring significantly greater compliance costs. Given the overwhelmingly great number of carriers having fewer than 100 power units and the tiny share of carriers with more than 100 power units, this cost burden would disproportionately fall on small motor carriers.”

Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.

18 Comments

  1. CJ

    I would have nothing to worry about but, while I totally agree with drug testing, a LOT of drivers are people who’ve turned their lives around and this is a fresh start. One I know in particular failed one of these. He hadn’t touched drugs in months.

    1. Lee

      A way for the government to get your DNA without have committed a crime I feel it’s an invasion of privacy falsely collecting someone’s DNA through the hair follicles so called drug screening process I understand safe driving is essential but so is an individuals privacy and right to keep their privacy rights under our constitutional amendments

  2. Kevin Pettes

    No Matter How You Look @ It The Bottom Line Is Overall Driver Quality & Driver Recruiting. Let’s Test DOT Regulators & DOT Officers. Just So Tired Of Exceptions Religious Societal Or Nationality.Also Tired Of The Power Influence Of Major Carriers On FCMCA Regs When It Is These Carriers Who Negatively Impact Commercial Safety Flooding The Roadways With Drivers Whose Only Driver Experience Is Driving A Big Rig. It’s All Economics NOT SAFETY

  3. Wendell Brown

    I’m a driver, who’s been driving for over 30years have never tested positive for drugs until I took a folical test to work for jB hunt, they claimed I tested positive for Crack cocaine, and I know I’ve taken any illegal substances before, but that test was taken about 15years ago, then just recently I took it again and they said I tested positive again, so I found out they send their specimens to a lab in California, a company call psych labs, and I told them you’re company is giving false positive, because I went to another drug testing place here In Indiana, that does testing for the federal government, and i got back a negative result, but the people at psych didn’t want to here it,

  4. Stacy

    I would not drive for any of them no good company’s never have in 30 yrs and never will . These very trucking companies are the very reason the experience hands that did nothing but break the law yr after yr . ACCIDENT FREE . These very company are the reason no one wants to drive and the ones that do . Well they don’t have no clue about driving a big truck and now there more accidents stupid unheard of accidents more now then ever . The only good thing is these companies have all ready shot there self in the foot as far as getting drivers and before you know it no one even the not so smart ones . will look somewhere eles . Hopefully they will fold up .

  5. Sable

    Wow, another great report where Mr. Gallagher removed any bias and reported on the facts which is what most drivers are interested in. What journalism should be and used to be. Thanks for the article. My opinion? Stop trying to find driver’s guilty before the crime! Maybe these monster companies could stop pushing speed regulators which are dangerous. In conclusion how UNSAFE the HOS is by forcing driver’s to sleep when not tired and drive when they are!! If safety is FMCSA’s goal, listen the the drivers!

  6. Lawrence D Scism

    when I was a new driver trainee for Werner Enterprises out of Omaha Nebraska my trainer was a leased owner operator and was not subject to random drug testing .
    He smoked pot in the sleeper while I was driving and getting to stoned to drive his hours so I was forced to log out and drive his hours with out getting paid for it.
    I reached out to the safety department and Drivers management..AKA my DM nothing was ever done in getting him put out of service when I finished my training I did not get hired but the trainer was able to keep his career intact with out any investigation into his drug use.
    that was unfair to me due to Favoritism to there lease drivers.

    1. Ritz

      you’re so laughable dude anybody with common sense knows drug use and abuse directly aligns with a Democrat. just like your political party does you throw dumb s*** out there all the time.

Comments are closed.

John Gallagher

Based in Washington, D.C., John specializes in regulation and legislation affecting all sectors of freight transportation. He has covered rail, trucking and maritime issues since 1993 for a variety of publications based in the U.S. and the U.K. John began business reporting in 1993 at Broadcasting & Cable Magazine. He graduated from Florida State University majoring in English and business.