NCJ Number
107283
Journal
American Business Law Journal Volume: 24 Dated: (1986) Pages: 309-357
Date Published
1986
Length
49 pages
Annotation
Employers that are structuring and administering policies regarding the urinalysis of current or prospective employees to detect marijuana and other drugs need to be aware of the probable limits that courts will impose, particularly on random testing.
Abstract
Urine testing can sometimes be an effective technique for identifying employees and job applicants who are taking drugs. However, it can also result in people being mistakenly labeled as drug users. Some of the commonly used tests are inherently unreliable, and any test may produce inaccurate results if not conducted properly. Even the most dependable tests are facing challenges on the ground that they violate employees' legal rights. Courts are just beginning to address these claims. The reported cases indicate that employers need not worry about the self-incrimination implications of urine testing. However, employers must be aware of issues related to due process, equal protection, limits on searches and seizures, and privacy rights. Courts will probably uphold urine tests given as part of routine or preemployment physical examinations designed to determine overall fitness for employment. However, they will probably permit random tests only if the employer has reason to suspect a particular employee of being under the influence of drugs. Courts will probably hold that random tests invade the 'decisional privacy' aspect of the right of privacy, but that routine tests do not. Finally, either random or routine testing may illegally invade an employee's right to 'disclosural' privacy. 224 footnotes.