Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 311–328

Employee drug testing: A constitutional perspective

  • Thomas H. Christopher
Articles

Abstract

The proliferation of employee drug testing by federal and state governments and by private sector employers acting pursuant to governmental directives has led to a steadily growing number of lawsuits raising constitutional challenges to such testing. Most of these cases have been based on the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. In 1989, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of employee drug tests for the first time in two cases,Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n andNational Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. Recognizing that urinalysis drug testing constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes, the Court determined the constitutionality of the drug tests by balancing the governmental interest in the testing against the privacy interest of the employees and, in both cases, upheld the drug testing at issue. TheSkinner andVon Raab decisions provided guidelines for analyzing Fourth Amendment challenges to employee drug testing, and the lower courts are now in the process of applying and refining these guidelines. Constitutional challenges to employee drug testing programs have also been based on the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Unlike Fourth Amendment claims, however, these claims have rarely been successful.

Key Words

employee drug testing Fourth Amendment due process equal protection urinalysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Federation of Government Employees v. Cavazos, 721 F. Supp. 1361 (D.D.C. 1989).Google Scholar
  2. American Federation of Government Employees v. Meese, 688 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Cal. 1988).Google Scholar
  3. American Federation of Government Employees v. Skinner, 885 F. 2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1960 (1990).Google Scholar
  4. American Federation of Government Employees v. Sullivan, 744 F. Supp. 294 (D.D.C. 1990).Google Scholar
  5. American Federation of Government Employees v. Wilson, 5 Ind. Empl. Rts. Cas. (BNA) 1201 (E.D. Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
  6. Bangert v. Hodel, 705 F. Supp. 643 (D.D.C. 1989).Google Scholar
  7. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979).Google Scholar
  8. Bluestein v. Skinner, 908 F. 2d 451 (9th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  9. Burka v. New York City Transit Authority, 739 F. Supp. 814 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).Google Scholar
  10. Chappelle v. Rice, 3 Ind. Empl. Rts. Cas. (BNA) 1372 (N.D. Ill. 1988).Google Scholar
  11. Fowler v. New York City Department of Sanitation, 704 F. Supp. 1264 (S.D.N.Y 1989).Google Scholar
  12. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. Tucker, 868 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  13. Georgia Association of Educators v. Harris, 749 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Ga. 1990).Google Scholar
  14. Guiney v. Roache, 686 F. Supp. 956 (D. Mass. 1988),vacated, 873 F2d 1557 (Ist Cir.),cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 404 (1989).Google Scholar
  15. Hanson v. Turnage, 3 Ind. Empl. Rts. Cas. (BNA) 1181 (N.D. Cal. 1988).Google Scholar
  16. Harmon v. Meese, 690 F. Supp. 65 (D.D.C. 1988),modified sub nom. Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F. 2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 865 (1990).Google Scholar
  17. Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F. 2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 865 (1990).Google Scholar
  18. Holloman v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 741 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ohio 1990).Google Scholar
  19. IBEW, Local 1245 v. Skinner, 913 F. 2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  20. Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 218 Cal. App. 3d 1, 267 Cal. Rptr. 618,review denied, 5 Ind. Empl. Rts. Cas. (BNA) 672 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
  21. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Carlucci, 690 F. Supp. 46 (D.D.C. 1988),aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 884 F. 2d 603 (D.C. Cir 1989),cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 864 (1990).Google Scholar
  22. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 742 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990).Google Scholar
  23. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 742 F. Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1990).Google Scholar
  24. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 884 F. 2d 603 (D.C. Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 864 (1990).Google Scholar
  25. National Treasury Employees Union v. Lyng, 706 F. Supp. 934 (D.D.C. 1988),modified sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. Yeutter, 733 F. Supp. 403 (D.D.C. 1990),aff'd in part and modified in part, 918 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  26. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989).Google Scholar
  27. National Treasury Employees Union v. Watkins, 722 F. Supp. 766 (D.D.C. 1989).Google Scholar
  28. National Treasury Employees Union v. Yeutter, 733 F. Supp. 403 (D.D.C.),aff'd in part and modified in part, 918 F. 2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  29. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).Google Scholar
  30. O'Conner v. Police Commissioner, 408 Mass. 324, 557 N.E.2d 1146 (1990).Google Scholar
  31. Penny v. Kennedy, 915 F.2d 1065 (6th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  32. Poole v. Stephens, 688 F. Supp. 149 (D.N.J. 1988).Google Scholar
  33. Rushton v. Nebraska Public Power District, 844 F.2d 562 (8th Cir. 1988).Google Scholar
  34. Seelig v. Koehler, 151 A.D. 2d 53, 546 N.Y.S.2d 828 (1989),aff'd, 76 N.Y.2d 87, 556 N.E.2d 125, 556 N.Y.S.2d 832,cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 134 (1990).Google Scholar
  35. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989).Google Scholar
  36. Tanks v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 739 F. Supp. 1113 (N.D. Ohio 1990).Google Scholar
  37. Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  38. Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  39. Thomson v. Weinberger, 682 F. Supp. 829 (D. Md. 1988),rev'd sub nom. Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  40. United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972).Google Scholar
  41. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).Google Scholar
  42. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).Google Scholar
  43. Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal. App. 3d 1034, 264 Cal. Rptr. 194 (1989).Google Scholar

Articles

  1. Case Comment,Drug Testing: The Supreme Court Joins the War Against Drugs, 42 Okla. L. Rev. 525 (1989).Google Scholar
  2. Case Comment,National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab: A Broader “Special Needs” Warrant Exception Dilutes Fourth Amendment Protection, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1989).Google Scholar
  3. Mass,Public Sector Drug Testing: A Balancing Approach and the Search for a New Equilibrium, 42 Baylor L. Rev. 231 (1990).Google Scholar
  4. Note,Alternative Challenges to Drug Testing of Government Employees: Options After Von Raab and Skinner, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 148 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. Simpson,Does a “Drug-Free Federal Workplace” Also Mean a Fourth Amendment Free Workplace?, 40 Lab. L. J. 547 (1989).Google Scholar

Books

  1. K. Dubowski and R. Tuggle,Drug-Use Testing in the Workplace: Law and Science (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas H. Christopher
    • 1
  1. 1.Law Offices Kilpatrick & CodyAtlanta

Personalised recommendations