Illustration: Drug and alcohol testing of job applicants by a government employer did not violate an applicant's right to privacy, when the testing was part of a program under which everyone who was offered a new position by the employer was required to submit to the testing.[FN4] However, the collection and testing of urine for purposes of ascertaining drug use were held to be an intrusion on an employee's right to privacy, despite the employer's argument that its interest in rail safety justified the invasion, when that interest was not applicable to the specific employee in question; the employee's job did not have sufficient safety aspects to constitute a safety interest that might be balanced against the intrusion on her privacy rights.[FN5] In addition, off-duty drug testing was held to violate an employee's constitutional right to privacy, when the employer failed to show that no less intrusive alternatives were available.[FN6]
Get Business Legal Updates
Protect your business with an on demand legal team
Listen to our Podcast!
Legally Sound | Smart Business covers the top business stories with a legal twist. Hosted by attorneys Nasir N. Pasha and Matt Staub of Pasha Law, Legally Sound | Smart Business is a podcast geared towards small business owners.