Librarians, accountants, ushers, administrative assistants and public relations specialists applying for positions with the city of Seattle will not be subjected to a pre-employment drug test.The Washington Court of Appeals ruled on October 2nd, 2000, that a urinalysis test on individuals applying for these positions was a breach of privacy, as it would not fulfill the city’s requirement of keeping the public safe. (Robinson v. Seattle, Washington Court of Appeals, No. 45511-7-1)
City Drug Testing Program
In December 1998, Seattle city council initiated a drug-testing program for job seekers applying for positions involving the handling of hazardous chemicals, performing hazardous physical activities, operating motor vehicles, heavy equipment or power tools and other “safety-sensitive” activities that would endanger public safety.Based on this program approximately half of the city’s job openings -- including positions as accountants, librarians and administrative assistants – required drug testing.
Privacy Protection
Kirk Robinson and seven other taxpayers and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Seattle under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.Using the stronger privacy protection offered by the state law, the Appeals Court stated that the individual’s right “ to nondisclosure of intimate personal information and the right to autonomous decision making” could only be compromised by the state for a very compelling reason.The court considered public safety to be a strong enough justification to breach the individual’s right to privacy, but that in this case the positions to be filled by the applicants could in no way be seen as “safety-sensitive.”
The city had also argued that they were addressing “cost and efficiency” issues with their drug-testing program -- saving time and money by not hiring drug users. The court responded that “virtually any intrusion could be justified if cost and efficiency were considered compelling interests in a constitutional sense… police procedure would be vastly less costly and more efficient were it not for the constraints of the constitution”.
The lower court must now go back to the city’s job descriptions and decide which jobs “directly and genuinely” affect public safety.For example, jobs where an employee carries a firearm will still be subject to pre-employment drug testing.
Just What are the Costs and Benefits of Workplace Drug Testing?
There is little doubt that drug testing in the workplace is a controversial issue -- the individuals constitutional right to privacy is in conflict with a workplace practice thought to produce a safe and productive workplace.A key question is whether testing is effective or not – does it lower absenteeism, accident rates, employee theft or employee violence?
The goal of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report, Drug Testing: A Bad Investment, is to bring to the business community’s attention reliable and expert research on the actual extent of drug abuse in the workplace and the effectiveness of urine testing in identifying problem employees.As the ACLU points out, most of the literature in this area directed to employers is produced by people in the drug testing industry.The study does not deny that there is a drug problem – but is it an epidemic?The data in this study, compiled by the National Academy of Sciences, leads one to question the cost-effectiveness of urine testing.
For further ideas on how to treat the issue of drugs in the workplace go to the U.S. Department of Labor’s website, Working Partners for an Alcohol and Drug-free Workplace.