HB0130 makes it unlawful for an employer — including a prospective employer — to make an applicant or employee pay for a medical examination required for pre‑employment, employment, or continued employment. The bill expressly treats drug testing as a medical examination and bars employers from shifting the cost to the individual, including by reimbursing the employee after the fact.
Enforcement is delegated to the Division of Antidiscrimination and Labor under the Labor Commission: individuals may file claims, the Division investigates and can order reimbursement and assess monetary penalties, and violations are a class B misdemeanor. The bill also grants rulemaking authority to the Commission and takes effect May 6, 2026.
At a Glance
What It Does
HB0130 prohibits employers from charging or requiring individuals to pay for mandatory medical examinations and requires employers to pay any charges a health care provider bills to the individual for such an exam. The bill closes a reimbursement loophole by forbidding employers from requiring payment with later reimbursement, and it defines medical examination to include drug testing.
Who It Affects
The statute applies to 'employers' as defined in 29 U.S.C. §203 — a definition the bill imports — and expressly covers prospective employers. Affected parties include HR teams, hiring managers, third‑party occupational health vendors, and health care providers that bill job applicants.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts the cost of required pre‑ and post‑hire medical screening squarely onto employers, creates an administrative enforcement route with monetary relief for claimants, and adds criminal exposure for noncompliance — changes that will affect hiring workflows, vendor contracts, and budget planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB0130 creates a new short chapter in Utah law that centers on three building blocks: definitions, a substantive ban on charging applicants or employees for employer‑required exams, and an administrative enforcement scheme. The bill defines key terms up front: it imports the federal statutory definition of 'employer' (29 U.S.C. §203), includes prospective employers, adopts Utah’s existing definition of health care provider, and states that 'medical examination' covers any physical exam an employer requires as a condition of hiring or continued employment — explicitly including drug tests.
On substance, the bill forbids an employer from charging an individual for any required medical examination. If an employer requires the individual to obtain an exam, the employer must pay the charges billed by the health care provider; the bill also prohibits employers from accomplishing the same result by requiring an individual to pay and then reimbursing them later.
That prohibition is categorical and does not carve out exceptions in the statute text.For enforcement, the Division of Antidiscrimination and Labor handles complaints. An individual who pays for a prohibited exam must file a claim within one year of the payment.
The Division investigates and, if it finds a violation, orders reimbursement of both any fee the individual paid the employer and the cost the individual paid a health care provider. The Division may also assess a civil penalty calculated as up to 5% of the amounts at issue, with the statute directing daily accrual until payment for up to 20 days; the Division retains half of penalty receipts to cover administrative costs (paid to the state treasurer) and directs the other half to the claimant.The bill gives the Labor Commission rulemaking authority to implement the chapter and makes any violation a class B misdemeanor.
The act’s effective date is May 6, 2026, so employers should review screening policies, vendor contracts, and hiring checklists well before that date to avoid exposure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill imports the federal employer definition in 29 U.S.C. §203 and explicitly includes prospective employers in the statute’s scope.
It defines 'medical examination' to include drug testing and prohibits employers from charging individuals for any required exam.
Employers may not require individuals to pay for an exam even where the employer later reimburses the individual — the bill forbids reimbursement as a workaround.
An individual must file a claim with the Division within one year after the day they paid an employer or a health care provider for a required exam.
If the Division finds a violation it may order reimbursement and assess a penalty up to 5% of the amounts at issue, accruing daily until paid for up to 20 days; penalty receipts are split 50/50 between administrative retention (to the state treasurer) and payment to the claimant.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — employer, medical examination, health care provider
This section imports the federal statutory definition of 'employer' from 29 U.S.C. §203 and expressly includes prospective employers, which broadens reach to pre‑hire screening. It adopts Utah’s definition of 'health care provider' by reference and creates a focused definition of 'medical examination' that explicitly includes drug testing. The practical effect is that the chapter applies to a wide swath of hiring interactions but ties scope questions (who counts as an employer) to established federal law rather than creating a state‑only standard.
Substantive prohibition on charging individuals
This is the operative rule: an employer may not charge an individual a fee for a required medical exam, and if the employer requires the exam it must pay whatever the health care provider bills to the individual. The section also closes off an obvious workaround by forbidding any requirement that the individual pay with later employer reimbursement. For HR and procurement teams, this will affect vendor agreements (who the clinic invoices) and cash‑flow planning for pre‑employment screens and drug tests.
Enforcement, remedies, penalties, and rulemaking
The Division enforces the chapter: it investigates claims, determines their validity, and issues orders for reimbursement. Claimants must file within one year of paying for the exam. When the Division finds a violation it must order reimbursement of both fees paid to an employer and costs paid to a provider; it may also impose a penalty of up to 5% of those amounts. The statute directs the penalty to accrue daily until the employer pays, but caps accrual collection at 20 days. The Division retains half of any penalty receipts to cover administrative costs (paid to the state treasurer) and awards the remaining half to the claimant. The Labor Commission has rulemaking authority to fill procedural and implementation gaps.
Criminal classification for violations
The bill classifies violations as a class B misdemeanor. That converts what might otherwise be only a civil compliance matter into an offense with criminal exposure under Utah law, which can affect employer risk assessments and counsel’s approach to remediation. Employers will need to weigh potential criminal liability alongside administrative penalties when designing compliance plans.
Effective date
The act becomes effective May 6, 2026. Operationally, employers, HR vendors, and hiring contractors should amend contracts and billing practices before that date to ensure health care providers invoice the employer directly or that employers otherwise assume billed costs for required exams.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Job applicants and current employees — They will no longer be required to front the cost of employer‑required medical exams or drug tests and can recover amounts paid through Division enforcement.
- Individuals who paid prohibited fees prior to enforcement actions — The statute authorizes direct reimbursement orders and a share of penalty money to be paid to the claimant.
- Health care providers used for occupational screening — Providers will receive clearer direction to invoice employers rather than applicants, reducing disputes over billing and collections (though this depends on contract changes).
- Labor regulators and advocates — The Division gains a clear statutory mechanism and some penalty receipts to fund administration, increasing capacity to enforce labor standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers (including prospective employers) — They must pay the charges for required medical exams and cannot shift those costs to applicants; employers will need to budget for these expenses and adjust vendor arrangements.
- Small businesses and low‑margin employers — Absent exemptions, smaller employers face proportionally higher burdens from absorbing pre‑hire screening costs and may need to change hiring practices or pricing.
- Third‑party occupational health vendors and background screening firms — They will need to renegotiate invoicing practices and may face administrative churn as employers change payment flows.
- The Division — Although it retains a portion of penalties for administration, implementation will require staff time and resources to investigate claims, promulgate rules, and process reimbursements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill protects individuals from bearing the direct costs of employer‑required medical screening, but it forces employers to internalize those costs and absorb administrative burden — a shift that can change hiring practices, raise labor costs, or push employers toward alternative screening strategies. Policymakers must balance worker protection against operational and safety‑compliance concerns, with enforcement and penalty design mediating that balance.
The statute is direct but raises implementation and interaction questions that the Division will need to resolve through rulemaking. Tying the employer definition to 29 U.S.C. §203 imports federal complexity: coverage questions (for example, single‑owner businesses, family enterprises, or entities below FLSA thresholds) may require cross‑reference to federal standards, producing patchy coverage or litigation over whether a particular entity qualifies as an 'employer.' The bill does not list exceptions for federally mandated testing, occupational safety requirements, or industry‑specific screening, so agencies and courts may have to reconcile conflicts between federal regulatory obligations and this state prohibition.
The penalty design uses a small percentage (up to 5%) of the amounts at issue and directs daily accrual for up to 20 days, then splits receipts 50/50 for administration and claimant relief. For low dollar claims the penalty may be a weak deterrent, while the 50% administrative retention creates a funding stream that could incentivize enforcement activity — a tension regulators should acknowledge.
The statute also forbids reimbursement after the fact, but does not prescribe how employers should handle incidental costs tied to multi‑purpose exams or how to allocate shared fees; proving who paid what (employer vs applicant) may impose evidentiary burdens on claimants and the Division.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.