Drug Testing: Constitutional And Policy Implications

Abstract

Let us assume the following three scenarios. Scenario one involves a professional football player who tests positive for drugs for the third time and under National Football League rules is suspended indefinitely. The second scenario concerns a railroad engineer whose urinalysis sample taken after a serious accident reveals drug usage and who is subsequently dismissed from his Conrail job. The final scenario includes a recent college graduate who applies for a position with a Fortune 500 company but does not get the job because she fails the required pre-employment drug test.

What do these three people share in common? They all tested positive for drug use and suffered economic loss, and possibly psychological pain, as a consequence. But were their rights violated? Was their privacy intruded upon? Was the testing procedure fair and accurate? Did the testing violate the American legal principle that guilt is individual rather than collective? These are some of the questions raised by government-mandated, as well as employer-required, drug testing. As courts and legislative bodies wrestle with these questions, the policy consequences of their decisions and enactments need to be considered. This paper purports to examine the constitutional issues raised by drug testing, how the courts have resolved them, and the policy implications that have resulted from their actions.