NCJ Number
117817
Journal
NarcOfficer Volume: 5 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1989) Pages: 61-63
Date Published
1989
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Regarding employee testing for drug use by urinalysis, the courts have sought an appropriate balance between employer and employee interests in the context of a so-called epidemic of illicit drug use.
Abstract
The growth in employer drug testing recognizes that the battle against drugs, with the pushers and suppliers as targets, has failed. The user is being targeted in an effort to reduce demand. What employers have at stake is the safety of their employees as well as employee production and efficiency. This aim, however, can conflict with employee civil liberties. Critics who oppose testing cite the possibility of erroneous results, the inability of tests to indicate impairment, and violations of constitutional and legal rights posed by drug testing. The legal standing of drug testing is affected in court by public or private status of the employer, constitutional privacy and due process protections, statutory law and common law employment at will, and defamation concepts. Random testing will likely be applicable only in narrowly defined circumstances. The drug testing dilemma will remain unresolved until the U.S. Supreme Court gives direction in a broadly applicable holding announcing the constitutional threshold elements of public employer drug testing of public employees. Private testing will also come under judicial scrutiny to an increasing degree, depending on the outcome of the public sector cases. Since this is a national problem, there should be some national standards for dealing with these matters. 9 references.