Any lawyers in the house? (for Ricky's sake)

[Never say die]

I was wonderin'. A while back I'd heard that a legal precedent had been set that made "non-compete" clauses in employment contracts non-binding; in that the 'non-compete" would in effect keep someone from making an income in their field of work. My question is then: If Ricky made the contention that ....say, for example, he needed to travel to India to further his studies at becoming a yoga instructor (his stated ambition), could it not be viewed as a potentially unlawful aspect of the requirement that he always be accessable for "random tests" in that, that requirement could prohibit his necessary pursuit of becoming an instructor and in fact perhaps prohibit his seeking an income in his chosen line of work?
Wordy, I know but I'm hoping some legal hounds might know of some loopholes in these types of agreements and if federal law might supercede his being bound to the arbitrariness of the random test aspects of the subtance abuse testing agreement etc.