Abstract
This article examines a range of legal and philosophical issues related to the drug-testing debate. The discussion of legal issues includes potential litigation on constitutional grounds (for public employees), statutory and tort grounds, or on the basis of civil rights legislation. Arbitration standards are also examined for situations involving unionized employees. The article further highlights pragmatic issues including the accuracy and costs (economic and noneconomic) of drug tests as well as the distinction between a positive drug test and impaired performance. Finally, the article addresses the delicate balance between an employer's right to unimpaired performance and an employee's right to privacy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bureau of National Affairs (1986).Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace: Costs, Controls and Controversies. Washington, DC: BNA.
Bureau of National Affairs (1987a, June 30). AMA calls for limitations on job drug testing programs. Daily Labor Report No. 124. Washington, DC: BNA.
Bureau of National Affairs (1987b, August 31). Corporations meet to consider drug-free workplace coalition. Daily Labor Report No. 167. Washington, DC: BNA.
Capua v. City of Plainfield, 643 F. Supp. 1507 (D.N.J. 1986).
Denenberg, T. S., & Denenberg, R. V. (1987). Drug testing from the arbitiator's perspective.Nova Law Review, 11, 371–413.
Dentzer, S., Cohn, B., Raine, G., Carroll, G., & Quade, V. (1986, May 5). Can you pass the job test?Newsweek, pp. 46–53.
Garland, H., Giacobbe, J., & French, J. L. (1989). Attitudes toward employee and employer rights in the workplace. This issue,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(1), 49–59.
Greenfield, P. (1989). Drug testing and the law. This issue,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(1), 11–26.
Karren, R. (1989). An analysis of the drug testing decision. This issue,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(1), 27–37.
Lindsey, R. (1986, May 2). Worker drug test provoking debate.The New York Times, p. 1.
Lorber, L. Z., & Kirk, J. (1987). Fear itself: A legal and personnel analysis of drug testing, AIDS, secondary smoke, VDT's. Alexandria, VA: The ASPA Foundation.
Maltby, L. L. (1987, June). Why drug testing is a bad idea.Inc., pp. 152–153.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1987).
Oil Transport Co., unpublished opinion, FMCS Case No. 86 K/17811 p. 13, Koenig Arb. (1986).
O'Keefe, A. M. (1987). The case against drug testing.Psychology Today, 21(6), 34–38.
Roth, J. D. (1987). An introduction to drug screening tests.The Labor Law Exchange: Drug Testing in the Workplace. Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee.
Rothstein, M. (1984).Medical screening of workers. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Seeber, R., & Lehman, M. (1989). The union response to employer initiated drug testing programs. This issue,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(1), 38–48.
Sonnenstuhl, W. J., Trice, H. M., Stoudenmeir, W. J. Jr., & Steele, P. (1987). Employee assistance and drug testing: Fairness and injustice in the workplace.Nova Law Review, 11, 709–731.
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978).Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.
Waldholz, M. (1986, November 11). Drug testing in the workplace: Whose rights take precedence?Wall Street Journal, p. 37.
Wisotsky, S. (1987). The ideology of drug testing.Nova Law Review, 11, 763–778.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenfield, P.A., Karren, R.J. & Giacobbe, J.K. Drug testing in the workplace: An overview of legal and philosophical issues. Employ Respons Rights J 2, 1–10 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385024
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385024