SCREENING WORKERS FOR DRUGS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF URINE TESTING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

Urinalysis has become a popular employment screening device, but its legal status is unsettled. The federal constitutional implications are considered by examining the testing process and analyzing what courts have said. Urine testing can sometimes effectively identify drug users, but it can also mistakenly label people as drug users. Some tests are inherently unreliable, and any test can produce inaccurate results if the integrity of the testing process is compromised. Even reliable tests are being challenged as violating employees' legal rights. Employers apparently need not worry about self-incrimination implications, but they must recognize problems involving other constitutional rights. Reported cases suggest possible directions the law may take, including: 1. no search and seizure problems for tests given as part of routine or preemployment physical examinations, 2. possible procedural or substantive due process problems arising from testing, and 3. possible illegal invasion of an employee's constitutional right to ''disclosural'' privacy.