NCJ Number
133162
Journal
San Diego Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 1 Dated: (1990) Pages: 29-79
Date Published
1990
Length
51 pages
Annotation
The latest court decisions pertinent to employee drug testing indicate that employers now have greater court-sanctioned freedom to explore employees' physical conditions in a way that affects the very essence of human privacy and dignity.
Abstract
Employers can collect information about drug and alcohol use without specific evidence that a substance was ingested. As a natural expansion, employers can also require specimens of bodily fluids if objective data indicate that drugs or alcohol were used. The court cases do not mean, however, that every employer can dispense with the probable cause requirement. Specifically, court decisions do not mean that employee rights can be abused to the point that employers can test at any time, for any reason, and using any procedure. Several statutory and common law protections exist to guard against indiscriminate testing by employers. Skinner and Von Raab serve as general guideposts for when a "triggering event" is not required for lawful testing to occur. These two cases also provide some insight as to when employers need specific evidence prior to testing for drug use. Nonetheless, the cases do not offer insight on the extent to which drug testing will impact or erode the traditional relationship between employees and management. As time passes, people may accept drug testing and related intrusions as a quid pro quo for initial or continued employment. In the mean time, because the issue of employment drug testing is still volatile, employers should consult experts when developing drug testing policies. Ideally, consideration should be given to the rights of employees and the general public as the employer attempts to achieve a drug-free work environment. Drug testing procedures and the importance of accuracy and reliability issues are discussed. 259 footnotes