This paper examines the ethics and legal principles surrounding drug testing in the workplace, weighing employer interests against employees' constitutional privacy rights. It argues that employment drug testing is clearly justified in occupations where drug use could endanger the public — such as transportation workers, pilots, and law enforcement — or where it could compromise fiduciary duty. However, the paper questions the legitimacy of drug testing employees in low-risk fields or screening for off-duty drug use unrelated to job performance. Drawing on constitutional privacy principles and referencing Dershowitz (2002), the paper concludes that while drug testing serves a valid purpose in specific contexts, its broader application in many employment settings is unjustified and conflicts with the spirit of individual privacy rights.
Drug testing in connection with professional employment is a controversial area. On one hand, there is a reasonable justification for it in some circumstances; on the other, it is much less clear what the justification is in other circumstances. In principle, privacy rights emanating from the Constitution would seem to conflict with unrestricted employment drug testing except where it is justified by a particular concern that outweighs the right of privacy of individuals. Technically, non-governmental entities cannot violate constitutional rights, but in principle, the philosophical issues applicable to employment drug testing are the same in the private and public sectors.
In the United States, employment drug testing is permissible under current constitutional interpretation; therefore, it is governed by state law. Some states allow employers to conduct pre-employment as well as random drug tests of employees, while other states prohibit employment drug testing except in certain employment fields and specific occupations. In many respects, the more restrictive approach to employment drug testing is more consistent with constitutional principles of individual rights and liberties and with the concept of personal privacy — determined by earlier U.S. Supreme Courts to emanate from the Constitution — despite the fact that there is actually no direct reference to any right of privacy in that document (Dershowitz, 2002).
The fact that drug use in certain employment fields and occupations involves potential risks to the public is adequate justification for conducting drug testing of employees in those positions of responsibility. In such circumstances, employment drug testing is justified because there is a compelling need to ensure that employees' performance is not compromised by drug use that could expose the public to danger. Typical examples include public transportation employees, pilots, air traffic controllers, public works employees, construction workers, and any other employee whose vocational responsibilities require mental alertness where drug use could harm innocent persons.
Similarly, drug testing individuals in positions where their drug use could compromise their duties is also justified. Typical examples include police officers, prosecutors, criminal investigators, holders of positions of public trust, and those with fiduciary responsibilities — positions where drug use could undermine integrity and make employees susceptible to corrupt influence that compromises their duties and functions.
Whereas it is obvious why even private commercial employers have a legitimate interest in prohibiting the use of intoxicating substances (including alcohol) on company property or during working hours, that concern merely justifies disciplinary action for those types of violations. It does not justify drug testing that covers employees' private use of time away from work, any more than it justifies testing employees for alcohol use away from the job.
Similarly, it is justifiable for police agencies to conduct drug screening for recreational drug use even during employees' private time, because drug use among police officers conflicts with their sworn responsibilities to enforce drug laws. Steroid testing of police officers would be justified even if steroids were legal, because of the potential link between steroid use and anger management issues, which could expose the public to danger as well as result in costly civil liability for the employing agency and community.
"Low-risk jobs and off-duty use lack justification"
Employment drug testing serves a valuable purpose anytime it is necessary to ensure against risks to public safety, to prevent corruption in public officials and authorized agents of the state, or to reduce the susceptibility of employees with fiduciary responsibilities to undue influence arising in connection with drug use. Conversely, employment drug testing of many other types of employees is not justified by any legitimate concern and violates the principle and spirit of constitutional privacy rights, even when conducted by private entities rather than government entities.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.