NCJ Number
108094
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 38 Issue: 10 Dated: (October 1987) Pages: 611-640
Date Published
1987
Length
30 pages
Annotation
This article examines selected major fourth amendment cases involving urinalysis in employee drug-testing programs, discussing the standards on which courts have relied to resolve issues raised by such litigation.
Abstract
Proponents of urinalysis argue that it can be a tremendous aid to employers in reducing drug abuse -- a problem that contributes to employee theft, low productivity, and employer liability. Detractors emphasize the capacity for error in testing, as well as the possibility that urinalysis infringes the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. A review of recent court cases reveals that a test given as part of an examination to ascertain an employee's or applicant's overall fitness for the job raises no search or seizure problems. In contrast, tests to detect drug use do invade legitimate privacy standards and must be conducted in a reasonable fashion, notably an employer must have a reasonable suspicion that an employee is abusing drugs. Other factors affecting the reasonableness standard include giving the test in a suitable environment by a qualified person, a confirming test given to subjects who test positive the first time, and keeping the results confidential. 175 footnotes.