Case Title: Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4193

Docket Number: 2018-1431

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4193.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-4193 
LUNSFORD ET AL., APPELLEES, v. STERILITE OF OHIO, L.L.C., ET AL, 
APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-4193.] 
Torts—Employment law—Invasion of privacy—When an at-will employee 
consents, without objection, to the collection of the employee’s urine sample 
under the direct-observation method, the at-will employee has no cause of 
action for invasion of privacy—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and 
common pleas court’s judgment reinstated. 
(No. 2018-1431—Submitted January 28, 2020—Decided August 26, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, 
No. 2017CA00232, 2018-Ohio-3437. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
KENNEDY, J. 
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Fifth District Court 
of Appeals, we consider whether an at-will employee has a cause of action for 
common-law invasion of privacy as a result of his or her private employer’s 
implementation of a workplace substance-abuse policy requiring the employee to 
submit a urine sample for drug testing under the “direct-observation method.”  For 
the reasons set forth below, we conclude that when an at-will employee consents, 
without objection, to the collection of his or her urine sample under the direct-
observation method, the at-will employee has no cause of action for common-law 
invasion of privacy.  Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 
and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
{¶ 2} The complaint alleges that appellees Adam Keim and Laura 
Williamson are former at-will employees of appellant, Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C.  
Appellees Donna L. Lunsford and Peter D. Griffiths are current at-will employees 
of Sterilite. 
{¶ 3} Sterilite, a private company, has a workplace substance-abuse policy 
that applies to all its employees, and compliance with the policy is a condition of 
employment.  The purpose of the policy is to “promote a healthy, safe and 
productive workplace for all employees.”  The policy reserves to Sterilite the 
discretion to change the policy at any time. 
{¶ 4} The policy sets out three circumstances under which Sterilite may 
exercise its discretion to require an employee to submit to drug testing: while 
investigating a workplace accident or incident, when there is reasonable suspicion 
that an employee may be impaired by drugs or alcohol, and randomly at periodic 
intervals.  The policy also provides that urinalysis will be used to test for an 
employee’s illegal use of drugs or improper use of prescription or over-the-counter 
drugs, but it is silent on how the urine sample will be collected. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 5} Under the policy, a supervisor informs an employee when and where 
he or she is to report for testing.  If the employee does not produce a valid urine 
sample within two and a half hours, the employee will be considered to have refused 
to take the test.  An employee who refuses to take the test is subject to immediate 
termination.  An employee whose urine sample tests positive for illegal drugs or 
prohibited use of prescription or over-the-counter drugs is subject to disciplinary 
action, up to and including termination. 
{¶ 6} Appellant U.S. Healthworks Medical Group of Ohio, Inc., administers 
Sterilite’s workplace drug-testing program.  To facilitate drug testing under the 
policy, Sterilite designated a restroom to be used exclusively for the collection of 
urine samples.  According to appellees’ complaint, U.S. Healthworks began 
collecting urine samples for drug testing by the “direct-observation method” in 
October 2016.  Under that method,  a same-sex monitor was required to accompany 
the employee to the restroom to visually observe the employee produce the urine 
sample. 
{¶ 7} Lunsford, Williamson, and Griffiths were selected by Sterilite for 
random drug testing on October 4 and 12 and November 8, 2016, respectively.  
Keim was asked to submit to drug testing based on the policy’s reasonable-
suspicion-of-impairment provision on October 9, 2016.  When appellees were 
instructed by their respective supervisors to report to the restroom designated by 
Sterilite for drug testing, each complied. 
{¶ 8} At the beginning of the testing process, each appellee executed a 
statement titled “Consent and Release” (“consent form”) provided by U.S. 
Healthworks.  The consent form provided: 
 
I hereby give my consent to and authorize U.S. Healthworks staff 
and its designated laboratory to perform any testing necessary to 
determine the presence and/or level of drugs in my body on behalf 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
of my  * * * current employer, whose name I entered above.  I further 
give my consent for U.S. Healthworks to release any and all results 
to the aforementioned employer.  I agree to hold harmless all U.S. 
Healthworks employees, physicians, and agents involved in the 
performance of the testing, from any action that may arise from the 
disclosure of such test results to the aforementioned employer * * *. 
 
{¶ 9} Appellees did not know at the time they executed the consent form 
that his or her urine sample would be collected under the direct-observation method.  
None of the appellees had previously submitted a urine sample under the direct 
observation-method.  Appellees were notified that the direct-observation method 
would be used when they reported to the restroom designated exclusively for urine 
collection. 
{¶ 10} Appellees each proceeded with the drug test under the direct-
observation method without objection.  Lunsford and Griffiths were each able to 
produce a valid urine sample.  Keim and Williamson alleged in the complaint that 
they each made  “good faith efforts” to produce a valid urine sample but were 
unable to do so within two and a half hours.  Sterilite terminated Keim’s and 
Williamson’s employment pursuant to the policy. 
{¶ 11} Appellees filed in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas an 
eight-count complaint against appellants on December 22, 2016.  At issue here is 
Count One of appellees’ complaint, which alleged that Sterilite and U.S. 
Healthworks invaded appellees’ privacy by requiring them to submit their urine 
samples under the direct-observation method.  Appellees incorporated the policy 
into their complaint. 
{¶ 12} Appellees argued that Ohio law recognizes an individual’s right to 
privacy and to freedom from unreasonable invasion of one’s privacy.  Appellees 
contended that because the direct-observation method is so “highly offensive to a 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
person of ordinary sensibilities,” Ohio’s courts should balance the intrusion of the 
direct-observation method against the employer’s legitimate business interests in 
conducting drug testing by that method.  And if the intrusion outweighs the 
employer’s interests in conducting drug testing by that method, then the employer 
should be liable for invasion of privacy. 
{¶ 13} In support of their arguments, appellees cited guidelines limiting the 
use of the direct-observation method published by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (“USDA”), the United States Department of Health and Human 
Services (“USDHHS”), and the United States Department of Transportation 
(“USDOT”) that were promulgated following an executive order of the President 
of the United States and acts of the United States Congress (i.e., when the 
employee’s prior drug-test results were reported to be positive for drugs, 
adulterated, or substituted; or a specimen was invalid without an adequate medical 
explanation; or when the temperature of the collected specimen was outside the 
acceptable range, the employee’s conduct indicated possible  adulteration or 
substitution of the specimen, or the specimen exhibited signs that it was tampered 
with during collection). 
{¶ 14} Sterilite filed a motion to dismiss on January 17, 2017.  U.S. 
Healthworks filed a motion to dismiss on February 21, 2017.  The trial court granted 
appellants’ motions to dismiss on May 9, 2017, determining that the crux of 
appellees’ invasion-of-privacy claim is that Sterilite’s substance-abuse policy 
authorizes the collection of urine samples through the direct-observation method 
“without requiring evidence, or a reasonable basis to suspect, that a particular 
employee is likely to taint, tamper with, or otherwise compromise the integrity” of 
the sample.  The trial court accepted appellees’ factual allegations as true.  The trial 
court noted that appellees had acknowledged that Ohio employees have no 
actionable invasion-of-privacy claim based on an employer’s implementation of 
“random and suspicionless drug screening” as part of its workplace substance-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
abuse policy.  It also noted that as support for the invasion-of privacy-claim, 
appellees relied on the federal guidelines regarding the use of the direct-observation 
method that had been published by the USDA, USDHHS, and USDOT.  But it 
determined that the policies of government entities are inapplicable because 
appellants are private companies and there is no state actor involved in this case.  It 
further determined that Ohio does not recognize an invasion-of-privacy claim by 
an at-will employee based solely on an employer’s use of the direct-observation 
method during drug testing, particularly when the at-will employee agreed to be 
tested as a condition of employment. 
{¶ 15} The Fifth District reversed, holding that appellees had stated a valid 
claim for invasion of privacy pursuant to this court’s decision in Housh v. Peth, 165 
Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340 (1956).  2018-Ohio-3437, ¶ 43.  In reaching that 
conclusion, the court of appeals determined that appellees have a “reasonable 
expectation of privacy with regard to the exposure of their genitals.”  Id. at ¶ 27.  
After finding no binding precedent on the direct-observation method, the court of 
appeals examined caselaw from other Ohio appellate districts, other states, federal 
circuit courts, and the United States Supreme Court, including cases considering 
claims involving alleged Fourth Amendment privacy violations.  Id. at ¶ 28-43. 
{¶ 16} Sterilite and U.S. Healthworks appealed to this court.  We accepted 
for review the following proposition of law submitted by Sterilite:  
 
Employees of a private employer in the State of Ohio do not 
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in whether they are 
reporting to work under the influence of drugs, or whether they are 
cheating on a drug test.  Absent allegations that the manner of testing 
used by a private employer to obtain this information is not job-
related and consistent with business necessity, an at-will employee 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
cannot maintain an action against [his or] her employer for invasion 
of privacy. 
 
See 154 Ohio St.3d 1463, 2018-Ohio-5209, 114 N.E.3d 214.  And we accepted for 
review the following two propositions of law submitted by U.S. Healthworks: 
 
Requiring employees to provide a monitored urine sample to 
independent laboratory personnel as part of an employer’s random 
drug testing policy does not constitute an invasion of the employees’ 
common law right to privacy as a matter of law. 
* * *    
Ohio law does not recognize a cause of action for invasion 
of privacy against independent third-party laboratories or their 
trained staff who are hired to collect and test urine samples as part 
of a drug testing policy between an employer and employee by the 
direct observation method of collection when the employee signs a 
consent authorizing any testing necessary to determine the presence 
or level of drugs. 
 
See id. 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 
{¶ 17} Because we resolve this matter by addressing U.S. Healthworks’ 
second proposition of law, we decline to address Sterilite’s proposition of law and 
U.S. Healthworks’ first proposition of law. 
{¶ 18} Sterilite argues that appellees’ status as former or current at-will 
employees is fatal to their invasion-of-privacy claim.  It contends that appellees’ 
compliance with the substance-abuse policy was a condition of their employment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
and their consent to drug testing and lack of objection to the use of the direct-
observation method negates their claim. 
{¶ 19} U.S. Healthworks agrees with Sterilite that appellees’ consent and 
voluntary participation in the drug-testing program negates their claim.  It notes 
that appellees signed a consent form and were advised that the direct-observation 
method would be used to collect their urine samples and that each appellee 
proceeded to take the test.  It further notes that two appellees produced valid urine 
samples and that the other two appellees made what they have deemed “good faith 
efforts” to produce valid urine samples. 
{¶ 20} Appellees concede that they were or are at-will employees and that 
Sterilite’s substance-abuse policy is justified.  Nevertheless, appellees argue that no 
employee should be expected to completely relinquish his or her right to privacy so 
that an employer can conduct drug testing in any manner the employer chooses and 
that the direct-observation method of urine collection crosses the line of what is 
acceptable in the right-to-privacy context. 
{¶ 21} Appellees deny that they consented to be tested under the direct-
observation method and advance two arguments in support of that contention.  First, 
appellees argue that appellants have construed the language in the consent form too 
expansively.  Appellees argue that they gave consent to U.S. Healthworks to test 
their urine samples and to release the results of their tests to Sterilite.  But appellees 
argue that they did not consent to the use of the direct-observation method.  
Appellees note that they learned about the use of the direct-observation method 
after they signed the consent form when they reported for drug testing.  Second, 
appellees argue that their submission to be tested under the direct-observation 
method was involuntary.  The alternative to complying was to be ushered out the 
door with a “pink slip” in hand. 
 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
9
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Standard of review 
{¶ 22} “An order granting a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is subject to 
de novo review.”  Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-
4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 5.  In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted, we accept as true all factual allegations in 
the complaint.  Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 
753 (1988).  A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears “beyond doubt 
from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to 
recovery.”  O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 
327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus. 
{¶ 23} This case places two common-law principles—the doctrine of 
employment at will and the tort of invasion of privacy—in competition with each 
other.  The fundamental principle of appellees’ argument is that the employment-
at-will doctrine must yield to an employee’s right to privacy.  Therefore, in 
appellees’ view, the common-law right to privacy enhances their rights under the 
employment-at-will doctrine and diminishes their employer’s rights under the 
doctrine.  However, 
 
“[i]n determining the extent of the right of privacy, it is essential to consider 
it in the light of duties imposed on individuals as citizens of a free country 
and in the light of an individual’s relation to the community of which he is 
a member, and such right does not extend so far as to subvert those rights 
which spring from social conditions, including business relations.” 
 
Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich.App. 271, 276, 167 N.W.2d 841 (1969), quoting 77 
Corpus Juris Secundum, Right of Privacy, Section 3, at 401-402. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 24} Therefore, because the right to privacy must be considered within 
the context of other rights and because Sterilite argues that appellees’ status as at-
will employees is fatal to their claim, we begin by considering the underpinnings 
of the employment-at-will doctrine. 
Employment-at-will doctrine 
{¶ 25} Ohio has long recognized the employment-at-will doctrine.  See La 
France Elec. Constr. Supply Co. v. Internatl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 8, 
108 Ohio St. 61, 140 N.E. 899 (1923), syllabus.  Either party to an at-will 
employment contract—employer or employee—can terminate the employment 
relationship for “any reason which is not contrary to law.”  Mers v. Dispatch 
Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 103, 483 N.E.2d 150 (1985).  And either party to 
an at-will employment contract can propose changes to the terms of their 
employment relationship at any time.  Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, L.L.C. v. 
Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242, 2004-Ohio-786, 804 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 18.  As illustrated 
by the court in Lake Land:   
 
If, for instance, an employer notifies an employee that the 
employee’s compensation will be reduced, the employee’s remedy, 
if dissatisfied, is to quit.  Similarly, if the employee proposes to the 
employer that he deserves a raise and will no longer work at his 
current rate, the employer may either negotiate an increase or accept 
the loss of his employee. 
 
Id. 
{¶ 26} However, the at-will-employment relationship is not without its 
limits.  For example, legislative bodies have enacted laws prohibiting retaliatory 
discharge when an injured worker files a workers’ compensation claim or engages 
in union activities and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, or 
January Term, 2020 
 
11 
disability.  Mers at 103.  And this court has recognized other exceptions to the at-
will-employment doctrine, including actions involving promissory estoppel and 
breach of an implied contract.  Id. at paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 27} The extent of appellees’ privacy rights must be construed within the 
context of their status as at-will employees.  Appellees concede that their 
employment was or is conditioned on their compliance with Sterilite’s workplace 
substance-abuse policy.  But Sterilite’s substance-abuse policy and its conditioning 
appellees’ employment on their compliance with the policy is not the crux of this 
controversy.  It is the manner in which the policy was carried out—the use of the 
direct-observation method during the collection of the urine sample—that is the 
core of this controversy.  Therefore, we turn to the common-law tort of invasion of 
privacy. 
Invasion of privacy 
{¶ 28} The heart of appellees’ argument is that absent just cause—which 
could include an employee’s past positive drug test or evidence or reasonable 
suspicion of urine-sample tampering or adulteration, or the employee’s express 
consent—an at-will employer may not use what it calls the “highly offensive” 
direct-observation method to administer a workplace substance-abuse policy.  To 
say it another way, an employer that without just cause uses the “highly offensive” 
direct-observation method for collecting a urine sample creates an actionable 
invasion-of-privacy claim by the employee. 
{¶ 29} Appellees’ argument does not originate from the Ohio Constitution 
or the Revised Code.  Appellees urge this court to not immunize at-will employers 
from invasion-of-privacy claims “just because other judge-made rules” have given 
employers the “privilege” to perform workplace substance-abuse testing.  
Appellees assert that at-will employers should not have “unfettered discretion” in 
choosing the method of urine collection. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
{¶ 30} Appellees argue that this court should apply our decision in Housh, 
165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340, which appellees believe would strike the right 
balance between the competing interests of an employer administering a workplace 
substance-abuse policy and the privacy rights of the employees subject to the 
policy.  And they urge this court to follow the decision in Wilcher v. Wilmington, 
139 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir.1998), and to endorse the drug-testing protocols at issue in 
Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 264 Cal.Rptr. 194 (1989), 
which would limit the use of the “highly offensive” direct-observation method to 
situations in which its use is justified. 
{¶ 31} We dispense quickly with appellees’ arguments based on the 
decisions in Wilcher and Wilkinson because the facts and law involved in those 
cases are easily distinguishable from the facts and law involved in this case.  
Wilcher involved a public employer and a Fourth Amendment challenge to the 
government’s use of the direct-observation method.  Wilcher at 373.  Wilkinson, 
while involving a private employer, involved a privacy challenge under an express 
provision of the California Constitution and an unfair-business-practice challenge 
under the California Business and Professions Code.  Wilkinson at 1039.  Sterilite, 
however, is a private company and is not a state actor.  There is no Fourth 
Amendment challenge before us here, no provision of the Ohio Constitution has 
been implicated, and there is no Ohio statute underpinning appellees’ invasion-of-
privacy claim.  Our review of appellees’ invasion-of-privacy claim is limited to 
their arguments based on the common-law right to privacy. 
{¶ 32} We first recognized the common-law right to privacy in Housh at 
paragraph one of the syllabus.  To be actionable, the invasion of privacy must 
involve “the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the 
publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, 
or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities in such a manner as to outrage 
or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary 
January Term, 2020 
 
13 
sensibilities.”  Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.  Appellees’ claim is based on 
the third right-to-privacy violation recognized in Housh—the wrongful intrusion 
into one’s private activities—which has also been called “intrusion upon 
seclusion.” 
{¶ 33} “Intrusion upon seclusion” is based on the “right to be left alone.”  
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 
630, 895 P.2d 1269 (1995).  It is “akin to trespass in that it involves intrusion or 
prying into the plaintiff’s private affairs.”  Killilea v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 27 
Ohio App.3d 163, 166, 499 N.E.2d 1291 (10th Dist.1985).  “ ‘One who 
intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of 
another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for 
invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable 
person.’ ”  Sustin v. Fee, 69 Ohio St.2d 143, 145, 431 N.E.2d 992 (1982), quoting 
Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 652B (1977).  Whether an invasion of 
privacy has occurred turns on the particular facts of the case.  See Kane v. Quigley, 
1 Ohio St.2d 1, 3-4, 203 N.E.2d 338 (1964).  However, the right to privacy is not 
absolute.  Earp, 16 Mich.App. at 276, 167 N.W.2d 841. 
{¶ 34} When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted, a court construes all factual allegations in the 
complaint as true, Mitchell, 40 Ohio St.3d at 192, 532 N.E.2d 753, and can grant 
the motion when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 
entitling him to recovery, O’Brien, 42 Ohio St.2d at 245, 327 N.E.2d 753.  In order 
for appellees to have properly survived appellants’ motions to dismiss, appellees’ 
complaint must have demonstrated (1) that there was an intrusion by appellants into 
a matter (2) that appellees had a right to keep private and (3) that the method of the 
intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person.  Sustin, 69 
Ohio St.2d at 145, 431 N.E.2d 992. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
{¶ 35} In Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 626-627, 
109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), the United States Supreme Court 
recognized that urine tests are not invasive of the body, but “procedures for 
collecting the necessary samples, which require employees to perform an excretory 
function traditionally shielded by great privacy, raise concerns.”  And in cases in 
which the collection of the sample to be tested “involve visual or aural monitoring 
of the act of urination,” privacy interests are implicated.  Id. at 617. 
{¶ 36} While we recognize that workplace drug-testing policies implicate 
employees’ privacy interests, we find as a matter of law that the facts alleged in 
appellees’ complaint cannot sustain their common-law invasion-of-privacy claim.  
Despite their assertions that they did not consent to drug testing using the direct-
observation method, the facts in the complaint demonstrate appellees did consent 
to the use of the direct-observation method. 
{¶ 37} Consent is generally an absolute defense to an invasion-of-privacy 
claim.  See Restatement of the Law 3d, Employment, Section 7.06, comment h 
(2015), citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 892A(1) (1979) (“One 
who effectively consents to conduct of another intended to invade his interests 
cannot recover in an action of tort for the conduct or for harm resulting from it”); 
see also Baugh v. CBS, Inc., 828 F.Supp. 745, 757 (N.D.Cal. 1993).  An employee 
who consents to drug testing cannot claim that the testing was highly offensive and 
invaded his or her right to privacy.  Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 
P.2d 1123, 1137-1138 (Alaska 1989) (employee could not validly complain that 
drug testing was “highly offensive” when he voluntarily supplied urine sample); 
Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex.Civ.App. 
1989) (drug testing is not a tortious invasion of privacy when employee consents to 
testing). 
{¶ 38} Sterilite’s substance-abuse policy was premised on the employees’ 
consent, which is “the central element of the right of privacy and its attendant public 
January Term, 2020 
 
15 
policy: the individual’s exclusive right to determine the occasion, extent, and 
conditions under which [the individual] will disclose his [or her] private affairs to 
others.”  Jennings at 502. 
{¶ 39} Appellees argue that appellants have read the consent form too 
expansively.  The consent form is limited by its plain language.  As written, the 
form covers the testing of appellees’ urine for the presence of drugs and authorizes 
U.S. Healthworks to release those results to Sterilite.  But, the limitation of the 
language of the consent form, which does not include that the direct-observation 
method will be used, does not change the outcome here. 
{¶ 40} However, when appellees individually reported for the collection of 
their urine samples, they were advised by the same-sex monitor that the direct-
observation method would be used.  At that time appellees had a second 
opportunity—consent or refuse—and appellees consented by their action. 
{¶ 41} Lunsford and Griffiths produced valid urine samples.  Keim and 
Williamson alleged that they made “good faith efforts” to produce valid samples.  
Their choice of the words “good faith efforts” establishes that they did not refuse 
to provide a urine sample, but consented and were unable to produce a urine sample 
within the time frame of the policy.  Appellees’ consent to take the test by the direct-
observation method was therefore not borne by their actions in executing the 
consent form, but by their actions in taking the test under the direct-observation 
method.  “Consent is the willingness in fact for the conduct to occur.  It may be 
manifested by action.”  Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 892 (1979). 
{¶ 42} Appellees argue that their production of valid urine samples or 
“good faith efforts” to produce valid urine samples were not voluntary because their 
refusal would have been grounds for immediate termination.  A fundamental 
principle of Ohio’s employment-at-will doctrine is that any party to an 
employment-at-will relationship may terminate the relationship for “any reason 
which is not contrary to law.”  Mers, 19 Ohio St.3d 100 at 103, 483 N.E.2d 150.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
And Sterlite had the right to condition employment on consent to drug testing under 
the direct-observation method, appellees had the right to refuse to submit to the 
direct-observation method, and because appellees were at-will employees, Sterilite 
had the right to terminate their employment for their failure to submit.  Because 
Sterilite had the legal right to terminate appellees’ employment at any time, 
appellees’ argument that their consent was involuntary because of their fear of 
termination necessarily fails. 
{¶ 43} When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 
courts construe all factual allegations in the complaint as true and should grant the 
motion when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no facts entitling 
him to recovery.  We are required to accept as true the factual allegations in the 
complaint, but we are not required to accept legal conclusions alleged in the 
complaint.  See Mitchell, 40 Ohio St.3d at 193, 532 N.E.2d 753.  Appellees can 
prove no set of facts entitling them to recovery.  On the face of the complaint, 
appellees consented, without objection, to the collection of their urine samples 
under the direct-observation method.  See Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., Tenn. App. 
No. 01-A-01-9509-CV-00407, 1996 WL 230196, *9 (May 8, 1996), aff’d on other 
grounds, 945 S.W.2d 714 (Tenn.1997) (affirming trial court’s grant of employer’s 
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for invasion of privacy because 
plaintiff’s complaint contained “no allegations that the [plaintiff] objected to the 
test when asked to sign the [consent and release] form or when selected for the 
test.”).  The trial court correctly granted appellants’ motion to dismiss appellees’ 
invasion-of-privacy claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 44} When an at-will employee consents, without objection, to the 
collection of the employee’s urine sample under the direct-observation method, the 
at-will employee has no cause of action for common-law invasion of privacy.  
January Term, 2020 
 
17 
Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Fifth District and reinstate the judgment 
of the trial court. 
Judgment reversed. 
FRENCH, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
STEWART, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O’CONNOR, C.J., and 
DONNELLY, J. 
_________________ 
STEWART, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 45} Appellant Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., ordered appellees, Donna L. 
Lunsford, Adam Keim, Laura Williamson, and Peter D. Griffiths, to each produce 
a urine sample while a monitor employed by appellant U.S. Healthworks Medical 
Group of Ohio, Inc., the administrator of Sterilite’s workplace drug-testing 
program, directly observed appellees’ genitalia or else appellees would be 
terminated.  Appellees claimed in their complaint that this “direct-observation 
method” of supervising the production of a urine sample violated their right to 
privacy. 
{¶ 46} The majority opinion rejects appellees’ invasion-of-privacy cause of 
action on the grounds that appellees had consented to the use of the direct-
observation method by either producing or trying to produce their urine samples 
while being directly observed and that appellees did not submit to direct 
observation under duress because they were at-will employees that Sterilite could 
have terminated at any time. 
{¶ 47} Whether appellees have an invasion-of-privacy cause of action 
against appellants has nothing to do with their status as at-will employees.  An at-
will-employment relationship does not allow an employer to commit intentional 
torts against its employees.  And appellees’ complaint stated sufficient facts to show 
that Sterilite coerced appellees to submit to the humiliation of having their genitalia 
directly observed as each of them produced or attempted to produce a urine sample.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
Because I find that appellees’ complaint states a claim for invasion of privacy 
sufficient to defeat a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted, I dissent. 
Invasion of Privacy 
{¶ 48} To be clear, appellees did not object to being drug tested by Sterilite.  
Rather, their invasion-of-privacy claim is based on Sterilite’s drug-testing 
procedure, which required them to expose their genitalia to a stranger while they 
provided or attempted to provide their urine samples.  This procedure, they allege, 
is so humiliating to a person of normal sensibilities as to constitute an invasion of 
privacy. 
{¶ 49} Invasion of the right to privacy is part of the “dignitary” torts—
actions that inflict an injury upon one’s reputation or honor.  Although the earliest 
cases alleging invasion of privacy premised relief upon some form of physical 
trespass, “later commentators shared the view that an insult to dignity necessitated 
a remedy in tort to vindicate the attack on the inner self.”  Makdisi, Genetic Privacy: 
New Intrusion a New Tort?, 34 Creighton L.Rev. 965, 980-981 (2001).  Thus, the 
tort of invasion of privacy protects a person’s interest in “personal dignity and self-
respect.”  Harper & McNeely, A Re-Examination of the Basis for Liability for 
Emotional Distress, 1938 Wis.L.Rev. 426, 451 (1938). 
{¶ 50} We long ago embraced the personal-dignity aspect of the right to 
privacy.  For example, in Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340 (1956), 
paragraph two of the syllabus, we recognized that among those actions amounting 
to an invasion of privacy are “wrongful intrusion[s] into one’s private activities in 
such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a 
person of ordinary sensibilities.”  We characterized the tort as a “salutary and 
progressive principle of law.”  Id. at 39. 
{¶ 51} In private-sector employment, random drug testing through urine 
testing infringes upon an employee’s right to privacy in at least two ways: the 
January Term, 2020 
 
19 
collection of the urine sample itself and the intrusion into areas of the employee’s 
private life that would otherwise remain unknown to the employer.  See Skinner v. 
Ry. Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 616-617, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 
639 (1989); Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 622-623 (3d Cir.1992); 
Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 957 F.2d 268, 274 (6th Cir.1991).  We 
should thus determine the degree of an employer’s harm to an employee’s right to 
privacy by evaluating the employee’s subjective expectation of privacy and 
whether it is objectively reasonable, the offensiveness of the invasion, the 
legitimacy of the reason behind the policy, and the existence of reasonable, less 
invasive alternatives.  Fisk, Privacy, Power, and Humiliation at Work: Re-
Examining Appearance Regulation as an Invasion of Privacy, 66 La.L.Rev. 1111, 
1126-1127 (2006).  In other words, the individual’s legitimate expectation of 
privacy must be balanced against the employer’s need to conduct drug testing in 
the manner it chooses. 
{¶ 52} Sterilite’s use of the direct-observation method to collect appellees’ 
urine samples was a highly intrusive invasion into a matter that appellees had a 
right to keep private.  “ ‘There are few activities in our society more personal or 
private than the passing of urine.  Most people describe it by euphemisms if they 
talk about it at all.  It is a function traditionally performed without public 
observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well 
as social custom.’ ”  Skinner at 617, quoting Treasury Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 
816 F.2d 170, 175 (5th Cir.1987).  The United States Supreme Court has concluded 
that urination is “ ‘an excretory function traditionally shielded by great privacy.’ ”  
Bd. of Edn. of Indep. School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 
822, 832, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735 (2002), quoting Skinner at 626.  The act 
of urination is one of the “few * * * times where individuals insist * * * strongly 
and universally that they be let alone to act in private.”  Lovvorn v. Chattanooga, 
846 F.2d 1539, 1543 (6th Cir.1988).  See also Capua v. Plainfield, 643 F.Supp. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
20 
1507, 1513 (D.N.J.1986) (urine “is normally discharged and disposed of under 
circumstances that merit protection from arbitrary interference”); Folmsbee v. Tech 
Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., 417 Mass. 388, 393, 630 N.E.2d 586 (1994) (“The 
act of urination is inherently private”). 
{¶ 53} The direct observation by a stranger of a person’s genitalia while the 
person urinates goes against societal norms that dictate a high level of privacy in 
that function.  As alleged by appellees, they were “required to bare his or her 
genitalia in the presence of the U.S. Healthworks monitor and to endeavor to 
produce a urine specimen while such monitor kept his or her eyes fixed on the 
employee’s groin area.” Sterilite has offered no reasonable justification for using 
the direct-observation method for urine collection over less intrusive means, 
including the procedure it had used previously, which did not involve direct 
observation of the employee’s genitalia.  Appellees had provided urine samples for 
drug testing in the past without being forced to expose their genitalia to a stranger.  
They also alleged that they had not given “[Sterilite] any reason to believe or 
suspect that [they] would attempt to compromise the integrity of the specimen 
collection process used by or for [Sterilite] in administering its drug screening 
program at any time in the past.” 
{¶ 54} Sterilite argues in its merit brief that more stringent monitoring 
procedures are required to defeat the efforts of some employees who might evade 
providing a urine sample or attempt to falsify a urinalysis result.  But there is no 
basis for Sterilite’s assertion that it needed to use a highly intrusive method of 
monitoring its employees when the employees provided urine samples. 
{¶ 55} Methods of collecting urine samples that are less intrusive than the 
direct-observation method plainly exist.  According to appellees’ complaint, 
Sterilite had not used the direct-observation method for drug testing prior to 
October 2016.  Moreover, the United States Department of Transportation uses the 
direct-observation method only if (1) a urine sample is determined by the laboratory 
January Term, 2020 
 
21 
to be invalid without an adequate medical explanation for the result, the original 
positive, adulterated, or substituted result had to be cancelled because the split 
sample could not be tested, or the sample was reported to be negative because it 
was too dilute but its creatinine concentration was within a particular range; (2) the 
test is a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test; or (3) the employee was observed to 
be “clearly” trying to tamper with the urine sample or the original sample was out 
of the acceptable temperature range or appeared to have been tampered with.  See 
49 C.F.R. 40.67(a) through (c).  These federal regulations show that employers are 
justified in using the highly intrusive direct-observation method if there is some 
reason to believe that an employee will tamper or has tampered with the urine 
sample.  But that did not occur here.  And although these regulations were 
promulgated to govern the drug testing of public-sector employees, they provide 
legitimate justifications supporting the limited use of the direct-observation method 
across employment sectors. 
{¶ 56} The reasonableness of Sterilite’s decision to use the direct-
observation method is thus a factual question that is not amenable to resolution 
through the granting of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.  I would conclude that 
appellees have presented facts in their complaint supporting their claim of invasion 
of privacy.  They have a legitimate expectation of privacy when urinating, and 
direct observation by a stranger while doing so is highly intrusive.  There were less 
intrusive ways for Sterilite to ensure that appellees’ urine samples and the results 
of their drug tests were not the products of tampering.  Whether Sterilite had a 
legitimate reason to use the direct-observation method is a question that goes 
beyond the allegations in the complaint. 
At-Will Employment 
{¶ 57} The at-will-employment doctrine does not diminish an at-will 
employee’s expectation of privacy in this context.  At-will employment is a 
relationship in which either the employer or the employee can terminate the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
22 
employment relationship for any cause or no cause.  Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio 
St.3d 65, 67-68, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995).  An at-will-employment relationship does 
not implicate an employee’s right to privacy and certainly does not mean that the 
appellees here had a reduced expectation of privacy because of their employment 
status. 
{¶ 58} To be clear, this case is not about an employer’s right to discharge 
an at-will employee.  Nor is this case about an employer’s right to require drug 
testing as a condition of employment—appellees do not dispute that Sterilite could 
require them to submit to drug testing.  Rather, this case is about how Sterilite 
conducted its workplace drug-testing program and whether its use of the direct-
observation method of urine collection constituted an invasion of appellees’ right 
to privacy.  Whether an employee has been hired on an at-will basis has no effect 
on the employee’s claim that the employer violated his or her right to privacy. 
{¶ 59} At best, appellees understood that as at-will employees they could 
be terminated at any time and for any reason.  But they could have had no 
understanding that their status as at-will employees would require them to provide 
a urine sample while a stranger directly observed their genitalia.  And appellees’ 
complaint makes it clear that appellees Keim and Williamson were not terminated 
based on their status as at-will employees or the at-will-employment doctrine.  
Appellees Lunsford and Griffiths each produced a urine sample and were not 
terminated.  Keim and Williamson alleged that they had tried to provide a urine 
sample but were unable to do so, and they were terminated under Sterilite’s 
substance-abuse policy that considered an employee’s failure to provide a urine 
sample within a specified period of time a “refusal to undergo a drug test.” 
{¶ 60} Even if the at-will-employment doctrine applied to the facts of this 
case, an at-will employee cannot be terminated for a reason that is contrary to public 
policy.  Collins, 73 Ohio St.3d at 67-68, 652 N.E.2d 653; House v. Iacovelli, ___ 
January Term, 2020 
 
23 
Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-435, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 11, citing Greeley v. Miami 
Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 234, 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990). 
{¶ 61} When we defined the common-law tort of invasion of privacy, we 
declared that Ohio’s clear public policy prohibits the violation of a person’s right 
to privacy by the wrongful intrusion of private actors.  See Housh, 165 Ohio St. 35, 
133 N.E.2d 340.  “[I]n a common-law system, a judicial decision declaring the 
rights of the parties can be based on several grounds, one of which is public policy.”  
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 371, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998), 
fn. 4, citing  Hopkins, Public Policy and the Formation of a Rule of Law, 37 
Brooklyn L.Rev. 323, 330 (1971).  See also Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 
Louis Ry. Co. v. Kinney, 95 Ohio St. 64, 68, 115 N.E. 505 (1916) (“Sometimes such 
public policy is declared by Constitution; sometimes by statute; sometimes by 
judicial decision”). 
{¶ 62} It follows that the at-will-employment doctrine does not supersede 
an employee’s right to obtain redress for the violation of his or her privacy rights. 
Consent 
{¶ 63} The majority opinion also concludes that regardless of any analysis 
based on appellees’ right to privacy and the at-will-employment doctrine, appellees 
each consented to providing a urine sample while being directly observed by 
Sterilite’s representative “by their actions” in providing, or attempting to provide, 
the sample.  Majority opinion at ¶ 41.  As a broad principle regarding whether a 
person consented to an act or acted under duress, we have explained that the “real 
and ultimate fact to be determined in every case is whether the party affected really 
had a choice; whether he had his freedom of exercising his will.”  Tallmadge v. 
Robinson, 158 Ohio St. 333, 340, 109 N.E.2d 496 (1952).  See also In re Hua, 62 
Ohio St.2d 227, 232, 405 N.E.2d 255 (1980).  Consent is generally an absolute 
defense to an intentional tort, see Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 892 
(1979), and like most defenses, its merit depends on the facts alleged.  For this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
24 
reason, the defense of consent is usually not amenable to resolution by a Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. 
{¶ 64} Appellants and the majority opinion are disingenuous in stating that 
appellees consented to providing their urine samples under the direct-observation 
method.  There was no direct consent here to the use of the direct-observation 
method.  The consent form that Sterilite required appellees to sign immediately 
before they provided or attempted to provide their urine samples said nothing about 
their having to provide the sample while a monitor directly observed their genitalia.  
And Sterilite did not inform appellees that they would be subject to direct 
observation until after they reported to provide their samples and after they had 
signed the consent form.1   
{¶ 65} With no direct consent by appellees, the question is whether 
appellees impliedly consented to the use of the direct-observation method by their 
actions; that is, whether their actions of submitting or attempting to submit their 
urine samples while being directly observed constituted consent. 
{¶ 66} Appellees had no time to make considered decisions on whether to 
submit to drug testing under the direct-observation method.  Sterilite’s substance-
abuse policy stated that “[a]ny employee who refuses to undergo a drug/alcohol test 
will be subject to immediate termination.”  At the time appellees were required to 
provide their urine samples, they were presented with two choices: either provide a 
urine sample under the direct-observation method or be terminated.  It would strain 
the meaning of the word “consent” to suggest that appellees consented under the 
circumstances in this case. 
                                                     
 
1.  Of course, there would be no issue regarding consent if Sterilite’s drug-testing policy involved 
notifying its new employees at the time of their hiring that its policy included the use of the direct-
observation method for collecting urine samples.  Similarly, when Sterilite decided to institute the 
use of the direct-observation method, it could have simply notified its employees of the new 
procedure that it had added to its drug-testing protocol. 
January Term, 2020 
 
25 
{¶ 67} Under similar facts, a federal district court determined that an 
employer’s policy requiring its employees to either take a drug test or be terminated 
was “tantamount to no choice at all” and that the plaintiff-employee in that case did 
not waive his right to challenge the employer’s drug-testing policy by submitting 
to a drug test.  Doyon v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 850 F.Supp. 125, 130 
(D.Conn.1994).  And in Polsky v. Radio Shack, 666 F.2d 824, 825-827 (3d 
Cir.1981), an employee alleged that her former employer had unlawfully 
discharged her based on the results of a polygraph test conducted in violation of a 
Pennsylvania statute prohibiting an employer from requiring an employee to submit 
to a polygraph examination “as a condition for employment or continuation of 
employment,” despite that the employee had signed a release prior to taking the 
test.  On the question whether the employee had consented to take the test, the Third 
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment 
to the employer, holding that an issue of material fact existed as to whether the 
employee “signed the release under threat of losing her job if she did not.”  Id. at 
827.  See also Leibowitz v. H.A. Winston Co., 342 Pa.Super. 456, 463-465, 493 
A.2d 111 (1985) (consent not valid if given under compulsion). 
{¶ 68} Under the facts alleged by appellees in their complaint, what 
happened to them was not much different from being an unwilling participant in a 
shotgun wedding.  Appellees alleged that they were “forced” to expose their 
genitals to third-party observers.  Taking this allegation as true for the purposes of 
a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St.3d 
463, 2004-Ohio-5717, 816 N.E.2d 1061, ¶ 11, whether appellees’ alleged implied 
consent to testing under the direct-observation method was the product of their 
legitimate fear that they would be terminated is a question of fact outside the scope 
of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.  For the majority to hold as a matter of law 
that appellees consented to having their genitalia observed while they gave, or 
attempted to give, a urine specimen is to subvert Civ.R. 12(B)(6). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
26 
{¶ 69} Neither of the other-state cases that the majority cites supports its 
conclusion that an employee’s consent to drug testing precludes the employee from 
arguing that the testing procedure was “highly offensive,” because the employees 
in those cases had not been ambushed at the restroom door and given the ultimatum 
to provide their urine samples under direct observation of their genitalia or else lose 
their jobs.  In Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1126, 1137 
(Alaska 1989), the employees had failed to show that the manner of drug testing 
was unreasonable and complained only about the purpose of the testing.  And in 
Jennings 
v. 
Minco 
Technology 
Labs, 
Inc., 
765 
S.W.2d 
497, 
498 
(Tex.Civ.App.1989), the employee challenged the implementation of a drug-testing 
policy after the employee had been hired.  And that policy contained “various 
safeguards for accuracy, confidentiality, and modesty.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. 
{¶ 70} In contrast to those cases and as noted above, the employees here are 
not challenging the drug-testing policy itself—they are challenging the highly-
offensive manner in which it took place without prior warning that the direct-
observation would be used.  This distinction is important when the scope of an 
employee’s consent has been distorted, as the majority has done here, to encompass 
implied consent without the employee’s having a reasonable choice or there being 
limitations on the testing procedure.  At what point would the majority hold that an 
employer has exceeded the scope of an employee’s implied consent in the context 
of an employee’s providing a urine sample?  What indignities must an at-will 
employee suffer to avoid losing his or her income and benefits before the employee 
has a cause of action for invasion of privacy?  Make no mistake, the majority’s 
decision today will disproportionately affect workers who have no meaningful 
choice and no recourse for their employers’ intentional torts. 
{¶ 71} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision 
to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and DONNELLY, J., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
January Term, 2020 
 
27 
_________________ 
Law Offices of S. David Worhatch and S. David Worhatch, for appellees. 
Brennan, Manna & Diamond, L.L.C., John N. Childs, and Daniel J. Rudary, 
for appellant Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C. 
Weston Hurd, L.L.P., Daniel A. Richards, and Joshua Miklowski, for 
appellant U.S. Healthworks Medical Group of Ohio, Inc. 
Bolek Besser Glesius, L.L.C., and Matthew D. Besser, urging affirmance 
for amicus curiae, Ohio Employment Lawyers Association. 
_________________