Source: https://www.cleartest.com/blog/latest-news/drug-testing-your-right-to-privacy
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:41:47+00:00

Document:
These words, spoken by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989), underline the importance of rejecting random drug testing of employees to combat the drug problem facing this nation. But unfortunately, suspicion less drug testing of employees, especially in the private sector, has been steadily growing since 1986. According to a recent survey of 1,000 companies performed by the American Management Association, 51.5% of the respondents engaged in some form of drug testing, representing a net increase of 140% since 1987.1 In spite of the serious consequences that can flow from this increasingly widespread practice loss of privacy, damage to reputation, unemployment, emotional distress drug testing in the private sector workplace is virtually unregulated. Only a handful of states has enacted protective legislation. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, private employers are free to test anyone for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Indiscriminate drug testing is both unfair and unnecessary. It is unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs, and whose job performance is satisfactory, to “prove” their innocence through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal privacy. Such tests are unnecessary because they cannot detect impairment and, thus, in no way enhance an employer’s ability to evaluate or predict job performance. In jobs where impairment of performance might directly affect safety and where employees work away from supervision, easy to use tests which actually measure impairment are available to employers.
If you don’t use drugs, you have nothing to hide—so why object to testing?
Drug testing allows employers to intrude upon the private lives of their employees. The “right to be left alone” is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Both the actual taking of urine samples and the analysis of the sample, which may disclose private information, violate this right to be left alone.
As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “there are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine.”4 The drug testing process subjects individuals to an offensive and degrading process. Some employers even require the employee to strip and urinate into a cup in the presence of an observer in order to prevent cheating.
Don’t employers have the right to run a safe and productive workplace?
Of course they do. If employees cannot do the work, employers have a legitimate reason for disciplining or dismissing them. But drug tests do not measure job performance. Even a confirmed “positive” provides no evidence of present intoxication or impairment; it merely indicates that a person may have taken a drug at some time in the past.
Urine tests cannot determine when a drug was used. They can only detect the “metabolites,” or inactive, leftover traces of previously ingested substances. Drug testing can detect marijuana that was consumed even weeks before the test date. For example, an employee who smokes marijuana on a Saturday night may test positive the following Monday, long after the drug has ceased to have any effect. In that case, what the employee did on Saturday has nothing to do with his or her fitness to work on Monday. At the same time, a worker can snort cocaine on the way to work and test negative that same morning. That is because the cocaine has not yet been metabolized and will, therefore, not show up in the person’s urine.
Still, isn’t universal testing the best way to catch drug users?
Perhaps, but it is also the most un-American way. Americans have traditionally believed that general searches of innocent peo are unfair. This tradition began in colonial times, when King George’s soldiers searched everyone indiscriminately in order to uncover those few people who were committing offenses against the Crown. Early Americans deeply hated these general searches.
After the Revolution, when memories of the experience with warrant less searches were still fresh, the Fourth Amendment was adopted. It says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense. Before a personal search can take place, the government must have good reason to suspect the person is concealing something illegal. The same rights to privacy and bodily integrity ought to be extended to private sector employees as well.
Drug use costs industry millions of dollars in lost worker productivity each year. Don’t employers have a right to test as a way of protecting their investment?
Is hair testing for drug use a preferable alternative to urine testing?
Advocates of hair testing assert that since this process is less intrusive, it surmounts the privacy concerns surrounding urine testing while providing employers with a means to ensure a drug-free workplace. Hair testing, however, suffers from many of the problems associated with urine testing.
While the collection of a hair specimen may not offend privacy to the same extent as urine collection does, the subsequent testing of the hair enables employers to learn a great deal about an individual’s medical history. Many legal drugs detectable by hair testing are used to treat expensive illnesses, like AIDS and heart conditions. Employers may be tempted to use hair testing to deny employment to people with these conditions. Because it enables employers to learn such personal medical information about employees, hair testing, like urine testing, is a serious invasion of privacy.
How can employers provide a safe and productive workplace without impinging on employee privacy rights?
The state of the law with respect to drug-testing in the workplace is still evolving. In the public employment sector, numerous challenges to mandatory drug testing programs have been mounted by both public employee labor unions and the ACLU. Those challenges have generally asserted that urine testing not based on probable cause, or, at least, reasonable suspicion, violates government employees’ Fourth Amendment rights. Such claims were often successful in the lower federal courts19 until March, 1989 when the United States Supreme Court issued its first two decisions in the drug testing area. (See below).
A handful of states have enacted laws prohibiting the random drug testing of employees in both the public and private sectors. (See below). However, in most states, private sector employees are still afforded no protection from the abuses of inaccurate and indiscriminate drug testing. More state laws regulating employee drug testing in the private sector are needed to protect employees’ rights to privacy and fair treatment.
On March 21, 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first drug testing decisions upholding two testing programs: the Federal Railway Administration’s testing of entire train crews following certain accidents or incidents,20 and the U.S. Customs Service’s testing of current employees who applied for promotions into certain positions.21 While the factual circumstances of these decisions were narrow, the Court’s language was very broad and, in essence, authorized the suspicion less testing of millions of government workers.
Although the Court concluded that urine drug tests were searches that must comport with the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” requirement, the majority in both cases also departed from precedent and concluded that “neither a warrant, nor probable cause, nor, indeed, any measure of individualized suspicion, is an indispensable component of reasonableness in every circumstance.” The majority went on to hold that where the government could demonstrate “special needs” it could subject its workforce to suspicion less personal searches, i.e., drug tests.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Marshall challenged this new “special needs” test, charging that it left the Fourth Amendment “devoid of meaning, subject to whatever content shifting majorities concerned about the problems of the day choose to give that supple term.” The dissenters recalled similar widespread public scares that created constitutional problems in the past, like the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the loss of free speech during the McCarthy period of the 1950s.
While not all of Justice Scalia’s predictions have yet been realized, some random drug testing programs in the public sector have since been upheld by the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s insensitivity to the privacy rights of government employees underscores the critical role state legislatures must play in protecting those rights.
Since the Supreme Court decisions, courts across the country have been grappling with numerous challenges to drug testing programs in government workplaces. Although the case law is still evolving, some trends have emerged.
Those implicating public safety: E.g., motor vehicle operators, locomotive engineers, aircraft pilots and boat operators working for Department of the Navy (AFGE v. Cheney, _____ F.Supp. ______ (N.D.Ca., 1990)); but not pathology technicians, diagnostic radiology technicians and dental hygienists (AFGE v. Cheney).
Those requiring the carrying of firearms: E.g., prison guards (Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir., 1989)); police officers (Brown v. City of Detroit, 715 F.Supp. 832 (E.D. Mich., 1989)).
Those with access to highly classified information: E.g., Department of Justice lawyers who hold top secret national security clearances (Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir., 1989), cert. den., 110 S.Ct. 865 (1990)).
The courts are, in general, not permitting the blanket testing of entire workforces. For example in Burka v. New York City Transit Authority,______F.Supp._____(E.D.N.Y., 1990), a federal district court threw out a drug testing program that was too all-encompassing and included employees whose jobs did not have a nexus with public safety. Similarly, in Transportation Institute v. U.S. Coast Guard, 727 F.Supp. 648 (D.D.C., 1989), the federal district court struck down the drug testing program for shipboard cooks, mess men and cleaners.
A handful of states have enacted laws restricting drug testing in the private sector. Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Hawaii have adopted laws that limit the circumstances under which employees can be required to submit to drug tests. Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah have adopted legislation that regulates drug testing in some fashion.
The laws of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana and Vermont restrict job applicant testing. Those same states and Rhode Island limit testing of current employees to those actually suspected of using drugs to the detriment of their job performance. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Montana further limit testing to employees holding safety-sensitive jobs.
In addition, some states have passed laws solely addressing the issue of drug testing of public sector employees. They include Florida, Georgia, Kansas, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
Notice: The employer is required to notify employees in writing of the employer’s drug testing policies.
Employee Testing: An employee can be drug tested only if the employer has reasonable suspicion that he or she is under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.
Applicant Testing: A job applicant can be drug tested only if the employer has reasonable suspicion that the applicant is under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.
Impairment Evaluation Procedure: Before a drug test can be administered, a drug recognition expert must physically examine and interview the employee or applicant to determine if a drug test is warranted.
Providing the Sample: Under no circumstances may an individual be observed while providing a urine sample.
Laboratory Requirements: Only laboratories certified by the Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) may conduct drug tests.
Right to a Hearing: Employees have the right to a hearing to contest the employer’s right to test, the accuracy of the test or personnel decisions based on the test.
Rehabilitation and Treatment: The employer must provide drug abuse assessment and an opportunity for treatment if treatment is recommended, and the cost of treatment is equally divided between employer and employee.
Confidentiality of Test Results: Information concerning a drug test cannot be released without the written consent of the employee.
Remedies for Violations: Any aggrieved person can bring a civil damages action in court, and anyone who knowingly violates the law may be guilty of a misdemeanor.
1.3. to ensure that all citizens enjoy the full benefits of the rights to privacy and due process of law, and the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and of this State.
1.4. to establish that Employers do not have a legal duty to require alcohol or other drug tests authorized by this Act.
2.3. to ensure that an employee with a substance abuse problem receives an opportunity for rehabilitation and treatment of the disease.
3.1. “Applicant” means any person who is offering services for compensation to any employer located and/or doing business within the geographic boundaries of the state.
3.2. “Drug” means any substance classified as a Schedule I or II controlled substance by the Drug Enforcement Administration; its metabolites; and alcohol.
3.3. “Drug Recognition Expert” means a person trained to detect the patterns of behavioral and physiological symptoms associated with major drug categories.
3.4. “Employee” means any person who is rendering services for compensation to any employer located and/or doing business within the geographic boundaries of the state, including those persons hired to work outside the state.
3.5. “Employer” means a person or entity located and/or doing business in this state and includes the state and all political or other governmental subdivisions of the state. Small employers, i.e., those employing fewer than fifteen (15) employees, shall be exempt from the following sections: 5.4-5.10; 6.6 6.7; 8; 9; 10.1 and 10.5-10.8; 11.3.7; 12; 13; 14; 15 and 17.
3.6. “Qualified Drug Treatment Counselor” means a person certified by the state to provide counseling for alcohol and/or other drug abuse.
3.7. “Qualified Drug Treatment Program” means a program or institution certified or licensed by the state to provide treatment and/or rehabilitation for abuse of alcohol and/or other drugs.
3.8. “Reasonable Suspicion” means a basis for forming a belief based on specific, articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts.
3.9. A “Sample Collection Site” means a medical facility supervised by a licensed physician or nurse. A medical facility may be a first aid station located at the work site.
3.10. “Test” means any procedure or protocol used to analyze body fluid or human tissue to determine whether an individual has used or is using alcohol and/or other drug or drugs.
No municipality may enact any ordinance under its home rule authority regulating an employer’s use of tests for alcohol and/or other drugs that violates any provision of this statute.
5.10. the remedies available to the employee for violations of this Act.
6.1. An employer may require that an employee submit to a drug test if the employer has reasonable suspicion that he or she is under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.
6.2. The employer shall pay the costs of all drug tests which are required by the employer.
6.3. An employer may not conduct random or uniform drug testing of employees.
6.4.2. evidence that the employee is involved in the use, possession, or sale of alcohol and/or other drugs while working. Such evidence shall not include information received from an anonymous informant.
6.5. The employee’s immediate supervisor, or other supervisory personnel in direct contact with the employee, shall make the determination of reasonable suspicion.
6.6. Prior to administering the test, the employer must provide the particular employee with a written statement describing the objective facts and inferences that are grounds for the test.
6.7. If an employee admits to being under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs no test may be administered. The employee shall be referred to an Employee Assistance Program as defined in 17. 6.8. An employer may not require that a blood sample be drawn for the purpose of administering a drug test.
7.1. An employer may require that an applicant submit to a drug test if the employer has reasonable suspicion that he or she is under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.
7.2. The employer shall pay the costs of all drug tests which are required by the employer or this statute.
7.3. An employer may not conduct random or uniform drug testing of applicants.
7.4. Reasonable suspicion shall be based on observable phenomena, such as the direct observation of the use of, and/or the physical or behavioral symptoms of being under the influence of, alcohol and/or other drugs.
7.5. Prior to administering the test, the employer must provide the particular applicant with a written statement describing the objective facts and inferences that are grounds for the test.
7.6. An employer may not require that a blood sample be drawn for the purpose of administering a drug test.
8.1.2. the right of the employee or applicant to request a hearing to challenge the determination to test, and the procedures for requesting such a hearing as defined in 13.
8.2. The person to be tested shall sign a statement which indicates that he or she was given the statement required by 8.1.
8.2.1. An employee or applicant’s refusal to sign such a statement shall not bar an employer from administering a test, nor invalidate the results of such a test.
8.3. The person to be tested will be escorted to a sample collection site, where he or she will be evaluated by a drug recognition expert (DRE) to determine if a drug test is necessary.
9.1. Interview – The DRE will conduct a brief interview with the person to be tested concerning his or her performance, and may include questions regarding recent eating and sleeping patterns, personal problems, use of prescription drugs, and recent use of alcohol and/or other drugs. During this interview the DRE will evaluate the alertness and responsiveness, speech characteristics, mood, attitude, cooperativeness, etc. of the person to be tested.
9.1.1. The person to be tested must be advised that he or she is not required to answer any questions.
9.2. Physiological symptoms – This includes measuring the pulse rate (three times during the examination), blood pressure, oral temperature, pupil size, pupillary reaction to light and dark, nystagmus (horizontal and vertical), smoothness of visual pursuit, perspiration, condition of the tongue, and salivation.
9.3. If, based on the evaluation, the DRE believes the employee or applicant to be impaired, a drug test may be administered.
10.1.4.1. This section shall not apply to applicants.
10.1.6. the availability of an appeal procedure to challenge the determination to test and/or disputed test results.
10.2.2. a statement that the form shall be submitted directly to the testing laboratory in order that the employer has no access to the information disclosed on the form.
10.3. The procedure for submission of the form shall ensure that no person other than the testing laboratory has access to the information disclosed on the form.
10.4. Under no circumstances may an individual be subject to observation in any manner while providing a urine sample.
10.5. The person tested must be provided with an opportunity to have a blood sample drawn at the time the urine sample is to be provided.
10.5.1. If the person tested requests that a blood sample be taken, the employer may not test any other sample from the employee.
10.6. The employer shall establish procedures to assure that the sample provided is labeled properly and identified as that of the employee or applicant throughout the testing process. In any lawsuit brought under this Act, the employer shall bear the burden of proving chain of custody.
10.7. The employer shall ensure that all positive samples are preserved in a condition that will permit accurate retesting for a period of not less than ninety days.
10.8. An employer may not conduct testing of its employees or applicants for the presence of alcohol or other drugs using a laboratory owned by the employer; except that one agency of the state may test the employees or applicants of another agency of the state.
11.1. A laboratory may report to an employer that a urine sample is positive only if both the initial test and confirmatory test are positive.
11.1.1. Initial tests must be confirmed by means of chromatography spectrometry or technology recognized as being at least as scientifically accurate as determined by the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
11.2. Test results shall not be reported in numerical or quantitative form, but shall state only that the test result was positive or negative, unless the person tested requests such a report.
11.3.8. the right to have the sample retested at a different laboratory.
11.4. In the event of a negative test result, the employer shall destroy within 30 days all records, reports and other documents in its possession related to the test and shall not thereafter make reference to the test in any employment related proceedings.
11.5. If an employee has successfully completed treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse, the employee’s personnel records shall be expunged of any reference to drug tests or their results when the employee leaves employment.
11.6. Test results and other information acquired in the testing process may not be disclosed to another employer or to a third-party individual, government agency, or private organization without the written consent of the person tested.
11.7. Test results and other information acquired in the testing process may not be used as evidence in a criminal action against the person tested.
In the event of a positive test result the employee shall be referred to a qualified drug abuse counselor to determine if treatment for abuse of alcohol and/or other drugs is indicated. If treatment is indicated, the employee will be referred to a qualified drug treatment plan.
Persons selected for testing shall have the right to a hearing to contest the employer’s right to test, the significance and accuracy of the test, or the employer’s personnel decisions based on the test. This right must be exercised within 7 days after receipt by the employee of the final test results and any resulting disciplinary action.
13.1.3. one person, not employed by or associated with either the employer or the person tested, designated by an accredited mediation or arbitration service.
13.2. The person requesting the hearing shall have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
13.3.3. the sample was properly handled.
13.4. The laboratory shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that its procedures insured reliable results.
13.5. An employer may change an employee’s work assignment, or, if a modified assignment is not possible, suspend the employee from active duty with pay pending the decision of the review panel.
13.6. If the review panel determines that reasonable suspicion to test did not exist, or that the accuracy of the test is not certain, the employer shall destroy within thirty days all records, reports and other documents related to the test. The employer shall not thereafter make reference to the test. An employee shall be made whole for any loses suffered by the employee due to actions taken pursuant to 13.5.
13.7. All costs of the appeal will be paid by employer.
14.1. The employer shall provide each person who has a positive test result with an opportunity to have a portion of the sample retested at an independent laboratory selected by and at the expense of the person tested.
14.2. A person whose retest is negative shall not be considered to have had a positive test result.
14.3. A person whose retest is negative shall be reimbursed by the employer for the cost of the retest.
15.1. An employer shall take no disciplinary action against an employee for drug use the first time the employee’s drug test indicates the presence of alcohol and/or other drugs if the employee undergoes a drug abuse assessment, and if the employee successfully completes treatment if treatment is recommended by the assessment.
15.1.1. An employer may discipline for misconduct, improper performance, or rule violations other than drug use.
15.2. The provisions of this section shall not apply where treatment is not recommended.
16.1. All drug testing performed in the state shall be performed by a testing laboratory certified by the Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration.
16.2. Such laboratories must be able to document competency with regard to personnel, quality assurance programs, methodology and equipment, on site confirmation of positive screening tests, security, confidentiality, and expert testimony.
16.3. The director of the laboratory must be a full-time employee of the laboratory and must be certified by the American Board of Forensic Toxicology or the American Board of Clinical Chemistry and Toxicological Chemistry.
16.4. The laboratory must demonstrate satisfactory performance in the proficiency testing program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the College of American Pathology, or the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.
16.5. The certification process must include a blind test of at least 10 samples. The laboratory must analyze samples correctly to be certified.
17.1. The employer shall provide drug abuse assessment, and opportunity for treatment if recommended by the assessment, to employees referred for assessment as a result of a positive drug test, and to employees who request such treatment.
17.2. An employee not recommended for treatment after assessment by a qualified drug treatment counselor may not be required to undergo such treatment.
17.3. An employee shall be permitted to select the particular treatment program in which he or she will participate.
17.4. Except to the extent that costs are covered by a group health insurance plan, the costs of treatment shall be equally divided between the employer and employee. If necessary, the employer shall assist in financing the cost share of the employee through a payroll deduction plan.
17.5.3. use administrative, sick or vacation leave and leave without pay to obtain treatment.
17.6. An employer may change an employee’s work assignment, or suspend the employee from active duty, when the drug abuse treatment program in which the employee is participating determines that the employee’s drug abuse problem poses a direct threat to the safety of others.
17.7. The results of any substance abuse tests administered to an employee as part of a drug abuse treatment program may not be released to the employer.
17.8. An employer may not administer a drug test to an employee while the employee is undergoing treatment for alcohol and/or drug abuse.
17.9. An employee may not be terminated from employment, or disciplined, for drug use, if the employee successfully completes treatment.
18.1. Any information concerning a drug test administered pursuant to this chapter shall be strictly confidential.
18.2.4. the duration of the consent.
18.3. The information shall not be released or made public upon subpoena or any other method of discovery.
19.1. Any aggrieved person, or the Department of Labor, may enforce the provisions of this Act by means of a civil action against any person, laboratory, or employer, who violates a provision of this Act, or who aids in the violations of a provision of this Act; including the state or any of its subdivisions.
19.2.3. may afford injunctive relief against any employer who commits or proposes to commit a violation of the Act.
19.3. An action for injunctive relief may be brought by the aggrieved person, by the Attorney General, or by any person or entity which will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the protected class.
19.4. A person who knowingly commits a violation of 8 through 11, 16, or 18 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or not more than one year in jail, or both.
19.5. In a civil action alleging that an employer has violated this Act, the employer has the burden of proving that the requirements of this Act were met.
19.6. In a civil action alleging that a laboratory has violated this Act, the laboratory has the burden of proving that the requirements of this Act were met.
19.7. An employer may not retaliate against an employee or applicant for asserting rights and remedies provided in this Act.
This Act shall not restrict an employer’s authority to prohibit the non-prescribed use, sale, or possession of alcohol and/or other drugs during work hours, or restrict an employer’s authority to discipline, suspend, or dismiss an employee for being under the influence of, selling or possessing alcohol and/or other drugs during work hours, except as that authority is restricted under this Act.
If any provision of this Act is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this article are severable.
Bohl, Don L. (ed.), Drug Abuse: The Workplace Issues. American Management Association Research Study (New York City, 1987).
DeCresce, Robert, et.al., Drug Testing in the Workplace. Bureau of National Affairs (Washington, D.C. 1989).
Maltby, Lewis L., “Why Drug Testing is a Bad Idea”, in Substance Abuse in the Workplace: Readings in the Labor-Management Issues, (ed. Hogler, Raymond L.). The Department of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations, Pennsylvania State University (1987).
Maltby, Lewis L., “Effectiveness of Drug Testing as Pre-Employment Screen”, (Memorandum, February 21, 1990). American Civil Liberties Union, National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace,132 W. 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036.
Morgan, John P., M.D., “The ‘Scientific’ Justification for Urine Drug Testing”, Kansas Law Review, 36:683 (1988).
Zeese, Kevin B., Drug Testing Legal Manual. Clark Boardman Company, Ltd. (New York City, 1990).
11990 American Management Association Survey on Workplace Testing, 4th Annual Survey, available from A.M.A., 135 W. 50th Street, New York, NY 10020.
3 “National Drug Strategy Report,” The White House, September, 1989, p.1. Available from the Government Printing Office order number S/N 040-000-00542. Call 202/783-3238 to order.
4 National Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F .2d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 1987).
5 Jones v. McKenzie, 833 F.2d 335, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
6 See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive Association, 103 L.Ed. 639, 660 (1989).
7 See Davis, Kenneth H. “Assessment of Laboratory Quality in Urine Drug Testing,” JAMA, Sept. 23/30, 1988, p. 1749; Greenblatt, David J., “Urine Drug Testing: What does it test?”, New England Law Review, 23: 651-666, 1989; Testimony of John P.Morgan, M.D., U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 9, 1987.
8 See “Drug Testing Laboratories,” hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on health and the Environment, June 13, 1989 and “Proficiency Standards for Drug Testing Laboratories,” hearings before the House Committee on Government Operations, June 10 and 11, 1987. Both available from the U.S. Government printing Office.
9 Isikoff, Michael, “Federal Drug – Test Method Probed for Possible Flaws,” Washington Post, Oct. 25, 1990, p. A3.
10 Greenblatt, David J., ibid.
12 Morgan, John, P., “The Scientific Justification for Urine Drug Testing,” Kansas Law Review, 36:683 697 (1988).
13 U.S. Department of Labor, “Workplace Drug Abuse,” August 2, 1990.
14 For further information on Georgia Power’s drug testing program during construction of Plant Vogtle contact Gene Guerrero, ACLU, 122 Maryland Ave., Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/675-2307.
15 Most of these studies have been reported in professional medical journals which are not readily available in public libraries. For a list of citations, and/or copies of the more relevant articles, contact the ACLU, Dept. of Public Education, 132 W. 43rd St, NY, NY 10036.
16 FDA Compliance Policy Guide #7124.06, released on June 13, 1990.
17 The technology for the critical tracking test was developed by Systems Technology Inc., of Hawthorne, CA., and licensed to Performance Factors Inc., of Emeryville, CA., which markets it as Factor One. For more information, contact Performance Factors, 2000 Powell ST., Suite 1500, Emeryville, CA. 94608.
18 Stevens, William K., “Measuring Workplace Impairment,” New York Times, March 6, 1990, p.C-1.
19 E.g., Feliciano v. Cleveland, 661 F.Supp. 578 (N.D.Ohio, 1987) (random testing of police unconstitutional); Capua v. Plainfield, 643 F.Supp. 1507 (D.N.J. l986) (suspicionless testing of firefighters unconstitutional); Taylor v. O’Grady, 669 F.Supp. 1422 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (suspicionless testing of correctional officers unconstitutional).
22 See, Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 267 Cal.Rptr. 618 (Cal.Ct.App., 1990), pet. to rev. den., No. SO14832 (Cal.Sup.Ct., May 31, 1990).
23 This model statute was drafted by Jack T. Frolich, a law student of New York Law School and a New York City Transit Authority employee.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 19th, 1998 at 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.