Drug Testing and its impact on Individual Privacy Rights
... any effect on his senses. Many feel that what the employee did on Saturday may have nothing to do with his or her ability to adequately function and perform at his or her job the following week and as such falls under the category of private information. Interestingly, an employee can snort the drug cocaine on the way to work and have a negative test result that same morning. This is because the drug has not yet been metabolized and will, therefore, not show up in the person's urine (Lectric Law Libary [LLL]). Traditionally, employers within the private sector have had the freedom to exhibit a great amount of personal discretion in personnel matters. In most states, private sector employees have virtually no protection against drug testing's intrusion on their privacy, unless they belong to a union that has negotiated the prohibition or restriction of workplace testing. In contrast, the public sector has provided provisions for government employees and as such enjoys a greater level of protection. Drug testing has been an ongoing battle in the courts for many years, with numerous state and federal courts ruling that testing programs in public, government or federal workplaces are unconstitutional if they are not founded on some kind of individualized suspicion. (Lectric Law Library [LLL]). Across the United States, courts have struck down programs that randomly tested police officers, fire-fighters, teachers, civilian army employees, prison guards and employees of many federal agencies. In 1989, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of testing government employees not actually suspected of drug use. The 4th amendment says that the government cannot legally search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense. However, in two cases involving U.S. Customs guards and railroad workers, the majority of the Courts held that urine tests are in fact searches, but that these particular employees could be tested without being suspected drug users on the grounds that their 4th Amendment right to privacy was outweighed by the government's interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace. Although these decisions represent a ruling, it does not affect all government workers, and the fight over the constitutionality of testing continues (Lectric Law Library LLL). The guidelines protecting individual rights within the private sector are less clear and far more subjective. The Florida state statues 440.101 states that “it is the intent of the Legislature to promote drug-free workplaces in order that employers in the state be afforded the opportunity to maximize their levels of productivity, enhance their competitive positions ...