Except for particular companies in industries that are regulated by the state or federal government (like nuclear energy, military contracting, and transportation), federal or state law does not have much to say when it comes to drug screening. But a lot of states, even local governments, to regulate these programs. Oftentimes, the rule depends on whether the organization wants to test an employee or applicant.
Testing candidates
Generally speaking, federal laws usually allow organizations to test candidates for illicit substances. But companies need to follow the state’s regulations and rules about providing notices and following policies intended to prevent inaccurate samples and discrimination. For instance, a number of states permit candidates testing only if:
The job candidate knows that these procedures will be part of the testing process for new workers (for instance, because the application said so or the company’s online posting stated that an illicit substance screen would be required).
The organization has already offered the candidate the job, dependent on passing the test.
Applicants for the same position are tested similarly.
State-certified laboratories administer the process.
Today, a lot of organizations that intend to conduct drug screens on applicants include in their applications agreements to submit to these programs. If the candidate is asked to agree to these tests in the application process, they have little to no choice but to agree to these programs or drop their applications.
Click this site to find out more about drug testing.
Testing current workers
There are legal constraints on screening workers for drug use in most private companies. In some places, organizations can’t conduct blanket illicit substance screens of all workers or random tests. The testing needs to be focused on individuals, either because the company has good reasons to believe that they are using illegal drugs or because the individual’s job carries a high risk of damage or injury if performed by workers under the influence of alcohol and illicit substances.
Courts have usually ruled that organizations may test their staff after suffering an accident that have been caused by alcohol or illegal use substances or incidents in which workers appeared to be hurt. For instance, a heavy-machinery operator who swerved their machine through a crowded area could be a legal target for drug screening. And a legal secretary found tumbled at her desk, who can’t respond to questions asked of her is also subjected to drug testing.
Challenging illegal substance tests
As a worker, people can always refuse to take these programs. But if they are fired because of their refusal, they may have various options. As a matter of fact, in some areas, people might be refused unemployment benefits if they are fired for refusing to take drug examinations.
Organizations need only to show that there’s a good reason to believe that they were safety hazards on the job or that they seemed unable to carry out the tasks required of them. People would be placed in a difficult position of providing that their company knew no such thing.
However, people may be able to win their work back if they can show that they were treated differently from other staff in the same position. If an individual has been given a test and unfairly demoted or suspended because of the process, their best is to argue that testers didn’t meet the rigorous requirements for a procedure and form set out in their state law.
How to collect and store test samples? Check out https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/infections/how-should-i-collect-and-store-a-urine-sample for details.
And always remember that organizations are free to put additional safeguards to help them protect against sample tampering. They can require subjects to remove their clothing and use hospital gowns or provide monitors who check the temperature of the sample and add dye to the laboratory’s toilet water. But a degree of discretion is needed. While a lot of courts have found it reasonable to have monitors listening as the test is administered, some organizations have found it a senseless invasion of privacy for monitors to watch.
When are suspicions reasonable?
A lot of areas in the country allow firms to test for illicit substances on reasonable suspicions that a worker is using or under the influence. What doubt is reasonable, as well as what’s not is in the company’s eyes, which makes it a pretty slippery standard.
But courts and statutes have attempted to set some recommendations that can be helpful if people are targeted for tests, and they believe their firm’s doubts are less than sensible. A rational suspicion of illegal substance use needs to be based on logical inferences and actual facts like:
Direct observation of the use or physical symptoms like lethargic demeanor or agitation, slurred speech, uncoordinated movement, as well as inappropriate responses to various questions
Erratic behavior or abnormal conduct while at work, or notable deterioration in job performance
A report of substance use provided by credible and reliable sources has been independently confirmed
Evidence that workers have tampered with the current screening results information that firms have contributed or caused by accidents at work
Evidence that workers have possessed, used, solicited, transferred, or sold substances while on the job or working
Not only have that, a lot of statutes required firms to maintain outreach programs and workplace counselling before they can screen workers. While most agencies like the Nationwide Testing Association are too sharp to slip up on details about these procedures, a lot of the statutes are so detailed and picky that it may be worth people’s time to ensure their screens made the grade.
Local and state laws
A couple of municipalities and states have statutes that regulate job-related screening for drug abuse. Those that do also define the scientific procedures that laboratories need to follow. And a lot of these statutes provide various ways of dealing with abusive or overboard screening that is quicker, less expensive, and simpler compared to filing lawsuits.
Some areas also need firms to contribute written plans on screenings and rehabilitation. Basically speaking, employees in the regions with the statutes regulating the procedures and timing of alcohol and drug screens may have more safety net than individuals living in areas with no drug-examination laws. People living in lawless areas may be tested without advance announcements.
