Drug testing programs in government agencies and private workplaces. The legal challenge continues

Occupational Medicine - State of the Art Reviews

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 87-100

  Snyder, Jack W ^a,c   Klees, Julia E ^b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BASF CORPORATION   (United States)

^c THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL ASPECT; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; WORKPLACE;

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HEALTH PLANNING; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE DETECTION; WORKPLACE;

EID: 33749000016     PISSN: 0885114X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. See e.g., Lundqist LA: Weighing the factors of drug testing for Fourth Amendment balancing. Geo Wash Law Rev 60:1151-1231, 1992;
2. Rothstein MA: Workplace drug testing: a case study in the misapplication of technology. Harv J Law Technol 5:65-93, 1991;
3. Williams PW: Suspicionless drug testing after Skinner and Von Raab: constitutional adjudication in the courts of appeals. Univ Kans Law Rev 40:733-776, 1992.
4. DHHS-NIDA. Fed Reg 53:11979-11989, 1988;
5. US-DOT. Fed Reg 54:49854-49876, 1989.
6. Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, PL. 102-143, 105 Stat. 917, Title 5.
7. Shults T: The state law mosaic - general considerations. MRO Alert 6(3):10-14, 1995; MRO Alert is published by Quadrangle Research LLC, Research Triangle Park, NC.
8. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S.Ct. 1492 (1987).
9. See National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 902, 109 S. Ct. 1384 (1989).
10. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S. Ct. 1384 (1989); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., 109 S.Ct. 1402 (1989); Veronica School District 47J v. Acton, NO. 94-590, 6-26-95 (U.S.S.Ct.).
11. See e.g., Broadwell DK: The evolution of workplace drug screening: a medical review officer's perspective. J Law Med Ethics 22:241-246, 1994.
12. See e.g., Weinberg DS: Another random drug test or the latest infringement on the Fourth Amendment rights of American workers? Northwestern U Law Rev 87:1087-1119, 1993.
13. See e.g., Intl. Brd. of Teamsters v. Dept. of Transp., 932 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1991) (commercial vehicle operators); Intl. Brd. of Elec. Workers, Local 1245 v. Skinner, 913 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1990) (gas pipeline workers); Transport Workers' Union, Local 234 v. SEPTA, 884 F.2d 709(3d Cir. 1989) (mass transit); Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (train or customs service workers who carry firearms); and Guiney v. Roache, 873 F.2d 1557 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 963 (1989) (police dept. employees who carry firearms or interdict drugs).
14. See e.g., Dimeo v. Griffin, 943 F.2d 679 (7th Cir. 1991) (horse racing jockeys). But see Univ. of Colorado v. Derdeyn, No. 92-SC-86 (Colo S.Ct. 1993 (random testing unconstitutional despite diminished expectation of privacy of college athletes).
15. On July 14, 1995, the Food and Drug Administration cleared for use in drug abuse screening programs the first sweat patch to test for amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates. The patch, which is applied to the skin, is designed for use by trained drug abuse testing professionals in clinical and rehabilitation centers. The new testing technology has two components: the Sudormed Sweat Specimen Container, made by Sudormed, of Santa Barbara, Calif., and the EIA Microplate Assay, made by SolarCare Technologies Corporation, Bethlehem, Pa. The patch is a waterproof adhesive pad designed to be worn on the back, upper arm, or lower chest. The patch has a tamper-proof feature so that it may only be applied once and cannot be removed and reapplied later. Urine drug testing can typically detect drugs for up to 3 days after the last known use. By contrast, the sweat patch can be worn up to 7 days and is designed to detect drugs of abuse during that period.
16. See DHHS-ADAMHA. Scientific and technical guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs; standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for federal agencies. Fed Reg 52:30637-30652, 1987;
17. Finkle BS, Blanke RV, Walsh JM (eds): Technical, Scientific, and Procedural Issues of Employee Drug Testing. Rockville, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1990.
18. See Stinson v. Physicians Immediate Care, No. 2-94-0969, 2-16-95 (Ill. App. 2d Dist.).
19. To create common law tort liability for defamation, there generally must be a false and defamatory statement concerning another; an unprivileged publication to a third party; fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm, or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. In theory, private employees could successfully bring a defamation action against an employer who published a positive drug test result with the knowledge of its possible inaccuracy. See Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., CA No. H-91-2360, U.S.D.C .(S.D. Tex. 1993).
20. See Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., No. 92-2361, 5th Circuit, 8/2/95.
21. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, No. D-4131, Texas S.Ct., 7/21/95.
22. Federal Register, Feb 15, 1994, at 7301-7625.
23. 49 CFR 40.91.
24. See e.g., Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (CFR § 40), Fed Reg 59(31):7347, 1994.
25. Although specific education and certification are not yet required of physicians participating in federally-mandated or private sector testing, both the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Association of Medical Review Officers offer 2-day courses and certification exams.
26. 42 USCA §§ 12101 to 12213 (West. Supp. 1992).
27. 42 USCA § 12112(a).
28. 42 USCA § 12112(d)(2) at (A) & (B).
29. 42 USCA § 12114(a).
30. 42 USCA § 12114(a).
31. 42 USCA § 12110(b).
32. 42 USCA § 12114(d).
33. 42 USCA § 12112(d).
34. 42 USCA § 12112(d); EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment, Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, No. 915.002(5-19-94) at 36.
35. See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Federal Highway Admin., No. 94-1209, 4-5-95 (4th Cir.).
36. 42 USCA § 12112(d)(4)(A).
37. See Schmidt v. Safeway, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 991 (D. Ore. 1994).
38. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 USC §§ 2601-2654, and Final Rules implementing the FMLA at 29 CFR § 825.100-800.
39. See Fed Reg 60:2195, 1995 (Jan. 6, 1995).
40. See Guillermo v. Brennan, 691 F. Supp. 1151 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
41. NLRB General Counsel's Memorandum on Drug and Alcohol Testing, Memorandum GC 87-5 (September 8, 1987): See Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Phillips 66 Co., No. 91-6212, USCA 5th Cir. (1992); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers' International Union v. Shell Oil Co., No. 92-9582, USCA 5th Cir. (1993).
42. The Harshaw/Filtrol Partnership v. International Chemical Workers Union, Local 73, 89-1 ARB 18089; Donaldson Mining Company v. United Mine Workers of America, District 17, Local 340, 89-1, ARB ¶8089.
43. See Redel CL, Abbey A: The arbitration of drug use and testing in the workplace. Arbitration Journal 48:80-85, 1993.
44. See US Department of Interior v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 91-1218, USCA D.C. Cir. (1992).
45. See Dykes v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 95-1032, Third Circuit, 11/7/95.
46. See United Steelworkers of America v. Lukens Steel Co., No. 91-1540, Third Circuit (1992).
47. Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., No. 90-1949, USCA 6th Cir.., cert. denied, No. 92-513, US S.Ct. (1992).
48. See, e.g., Mansourou v. John Crane Inc., No. 1-92-2260, Ill. App. Ct. (1993).
49. Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611 (3d Cir. 1992) (at-will employee discharged for refusing to consent to random drug testing and personal property searches may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge under Pennsylvania law if such testing tortiously invaded her common law right to privacy).
50. Walk v. P.I.E. Nationwide Inc., No. 90-2097, USCA 6th Cir. (1992).
51. See Pike v. Gallagher, CA No. 91-0891, USDC (D.N.M. 1993).
52. See, e.g., Farm Fresh Dairy, Inc. v. Blackburn, No. 74, 905, S.Ct. Okla. (1992); but see Wenzel v. Rissler & McMurry, Inc., 887 P.2d 686 (Wyo. 1992) (no misconduct if employer does not follow its policy and procedures).
53. See, e.g., Kaminski v. Texas Employment Commission, No. A14-92-00352-CV, Tex.Ct.App., 14th Dist. (1993) (refusal to undergo test); Reigelsberger v. Employment Appeal Board, No. 164/92-890, Iowa S.Ct. (1993) (refusal to undergo substance abuse treatment).
54. See, e.g., Thompson v. Capital Steel Co., No. CA-91-1619, La.Ct.App. (1st Cir. 1992).
55. National Research Council: Under the influence? Drugs and the American Workforce. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1994, pp 1-336.