NCJ Number
114426
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 32 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (1987) Pages: 691-718
Date Published
1987
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article surveys forms of legal resistance to workplace urinalysis drug testing, examines competing interests in drug testing, and outlines a statutory scheme that would serve the strongest of these interests.
Abstract
For employees who feel they have been legally injured by submission to urinalysis, common law provides for several possible tort actions. A defamation action might lie for a worker whose reputation was injured by a mistaken indication of drug use. An invasion of privacy action might apply under intrusion or public disclosure of private facts. However, such actions are difficult to sustain, and both are vulnerable to claims that the employee consented to testing. Wrongful dismissal may provide redress for employees fired for refusing to be tested, but this tort is subject to certain limitations. For public employees, the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure provides a constitutional avenue for redress, while private employees may find relief under State constitutions. In addition to policy concerns regarding the reliability of drug testing methods, employee drug testing raises issues relating to the conflicting interests of the employer, the employee, and the public. Of these, privacy should be given primacy. If drug testing must exist, it must be regulated. Employees should be tested only when there are documented job-site performance problems, and random testing or testing on the basis of rumor or hunch should be prohibited. Testing laboratories should be licensed, employees should have a right to an independent confirmation of positive results, and confidentiality safeguards are needed. 154 footnotes.