Job seeker claims J.B. Hunt's hair drug test unfairly blocks Black drivers from jobs
A new lawsuit is challenging J.B. Hunt’s hair drug testing policy, claiming it unfairly blocks African American job seekers from landing a spot behind the wheel.
Filed on October 15, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the complaint comes from Sebastian T. Randolph, who says he lost out on a truck driving job with J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. because of a positive hair follicle drug test for cocaine—even though he passed a urine test. Randolph argues that the company’s use of hair testing, which isn’t required by federal transportation rules, puts African American applicants at a disadvantage and violates anti-discrimination laws.
According to the complaint, Randolph applied for a driver position in Phoenix and was offered the job on April 8, 2025, as long as he cleared a background check, a post-offer exam, and a non-DOT hair follicle drug screen.
He says he was never told that the hair test was not a Department of Transportation or Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirement. After testing positive on the hair test, but negative on the urine test, Randolph’s job offer was rescinded.
Randolph’s complaint points to research and court cases suggesting that hair drug testing can result in more false positives for African Americans, due to differences in hair composition.
He claims J.B. Hunt’s policy isn’t just unnecessary—it’s discriminatory, because it leads to more failed tests for Black applicants, even when they haven’t used drugs.
The complaint goes further, alleging that after the positive result, Randolph was required to complete a Substance Abuse Professional evaluation and a return-to-duty process, which cost him time and money.
He says he resigned from his previous job to take the J.B. Hunt offer, only to be left without employment and out-of-pocket for the evaluation, for which he was denied a refund.
Randolph is asking the court for more than just compensation. He wants J.B. Hunt to change its hiring practices, including funding commercial driver’s license training in underserved and predominantly African American communities, partnering with local organizations, and making its drug screening process more transparent and compliant with federal standards.
He’s seeking $150,000 in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and reputational harm, along with a court order to overhaul the company’s approach to drug testing and hiring.
At this point, it’s important to remember that these are allegations. J.B. Hunt hasn’t yet responded in court, and no findings have been made. The outcome is still pending.
For HR leaders, this lawsuit is a reminder about the risks of employment screening policies that go beyond what’s required by law. It highlights the need to regularly review hiring practices for unintended bias, especially when those practices could disproportionately affect certain groups. As the case moves forward, it’s one to watch for anyone involved in recruitment, compliance, or diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
