A priority in American domestic policy over the past few years has been to win the battle against drug use in our society. The frenzy surrounding this country's war on drugs, however, inevitably begs the question, Is the government, either as an employer or regulator of private sector employment, within legal and constitutional bounds when it requires employees to undergo drug testing? This question is examined through an analysis of the case law to date. The article closes with forecasted legal trends in drug testing and the implications for public as well as private sector employers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Government Employees v. Dole, 670 F. Supp. 445
2.
American Federation of Government Employees v. Skinner, 885 F. 2d 884 (D. C. Cir. 1989)
3.
American Postal Workers Union v. Frank, 725 F. Supp. 87 (1989)
4.
Capua v. City of Plainfield, 643 F. Supp. 1507 (D. N. J. (1986)
5.
CaseyD. L. (1988). Drug testing in a unionized environment. Employee Relations Law Journal, 13(4), 599–613
6.
CochranK. M. (1989). Union challenges to testing. In DecresceR. P.LifshitzM. S.AmbreJ.MazuraA. C.TilonJ. E.CochranK. M. (Eds.) Drug testing in the workplace (pp.165–222). Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs
7.
Committee for G. I. Rights v. Callaway, 518 F. 2d 466 (D. C. Cir. 1975)
8.
CooperP. J. (1988). Public law and public administration (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
9.
DaleC. V. (1987). Constitutional analysis of proposals to establish a mandatory federal employee drug-testing program. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress
10.
Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594 (1981)
11.
ElliottR. H. (1989). Drug testing and public personnel administration. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 9(3), 15–31
12.
GesenswayD. (1989, November 12) Hair a new way to test for drugs. Albany Times Union, A1, 4
13.
Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 99 S. Ct. 2100 (1979)
14.
Guiney v. Roache, 873 F. 2d 1557 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 404 (1989)
15.
Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F. 2d 484 (D. C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, sub nom Bell v. Thornburgh 110 S. Ct. 865 (1990)
16.
KlingnerD. E.O'NeillN. G.SabetM. (1989). Drug testing in public agencies: Public policy issues and managerial responses. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10(1), 1–10
17.
MazoD. P. (1987). Yellow rows of test tubes: Due process constraints on discharges of public employees based on drug urinalysis testing. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 735, 1623–1656
18.
MartinA. A. (1988). Title VII discrimination in biochemical testing for AIDS and marijuana. Duke Law Journal, 129, 129–153
19.
McDonell v. Hunter, 809 F. 2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1987)
20.
MooreT. (1987). Constitutional law: The Fourth Amendment and drug testing in the workplace. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 10(3), 762–769
21.
National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 884 F. 2d 603 (D. C. Cir. 1989)
22.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab 816 F. 2d 170 (5th Cir. 1987)
23.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, (1989, March 12). Law Week 57, 4338–4347
24.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administration and law. New York: Marcel Dekker
The Shield Club v. City of Cleveland, 647 F. Supp. 274 (N. D. Ohio 1986)
27.
Shoemaker v. Handel, 795 F. 2d 1136 (3d Cir. 1986). cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 577 (1986)
28.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association. (1989, March 21). Law Week, 57, 4324–4338
29.
Taylor v. O'Grady 888 F. 2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)
30.
ThompsonF. J.RiccucciN. J.BanC. (in press). Biological testing and personnel policy: Drugs and the federal workplace. In BanC.RiccucciN. J. (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges. White Plains, NY: Longman
31.
TschirnL. A. (1988). National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab: Specimen surveillance. Loyola Law Review, 33, 1148–1162
32.
WeeksJ. D. (1988). Public employee drug testing under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Urban Lawyer, 20(2), 445–474
33.
ZimmermanC. (1989). Urine testing, testing-based employment decisions and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 22, 219–267
