individual's Random Drug Testing: To notice (i.e. 30 days) It is likely that an invasion of privacy is smallest when related information reasonable evaluate whether an to employees that the employee's privacy the employee urinates in the privacy of should be kept drug tests. expectation of employer's drug testing employer will be interest is stronger the bathroom and simply submits the private and privacy may policy violates an implementing drug for a urine test or urine sample to the medical assistant. confidential in a violate the employee's rights under the testing. blood test than for a Under the Privacy Act, the more the secure location. Massachusetts Privacy Act, the employer's hair test. testing intrudes on an employee's Courts have Privacy Act. business interest in privacy interest, the stronger the confirmed that results determining whether its Substances: State employer's business interest must be to of a drug test can (Mass. Gen. Laws employees are using drugs law does not specify justify the test. contain private ch. 214, § 1B). must outweigh the the substances for information about an (Harrison, 2000 WL 282446, at *3). employees' right to privacy. which tests can be employee and that For example, random run. disclosing this testing has been held to be information without justified for some having a good employees whose job duties business reason to do involve a direct threat to the so could violate the safety of others. Privacy Act. (Webster v. Motorola, Inc., (Webster, 637 N.E.2d 637 N.E.2d 203, 206 (Mass. at 207). 1994)). Reasonable Suspicion: Courts will balance an employer's legitimate business interest in investigating suspected drug use against the "significant invasion" of the employee's privacy. For example, a urine testing program did not violate the Privacy Act where: The employer gave 30 • days' notice before initiating any drug testing; All full-time employees • were required to be tested; The employer had a strong • suspicion of drug use; and Employees used • dangerous equipment which required extreme alertness and precision. (Folmsbee v. Tech Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., 630 N.E.2d 586, 589 (Mass. 1994))
individual's reasonable expectation of privacy may violate the Massachusetts Privacy Act. (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B). Random Drug Testing: To evaluate whether an employer's drug testing policy violates an employee's rights under the Privacy Act, the employer's business interest in determining whether its employees are using drugs must outweigh the employees' right to privacy. For example, random testing has been held to be justified for some employees whose job duties involve a direct threat to the safety of others. (Webster v. Motorola, Inc., 637 N.E.2d 203, 206 (Mass. 1994)). Reasonable Suspicion: Courts will balance an employer's legitimate business interest in investigating suspected drug use against the "significant invasion" of the employee's privacy. For example, a urine testing program did not violate the Privacy Act where: • The employer gave 30 days' notice before initiating any drug testing; • All full-time employees were required to be tested; • The employer had a strong suspicion of drug use; and • Employees used dangerous equipment which required extreme alertness and precision. (Folmsbee v. Tech Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., 630 N.E.2d 586, 589 (Mass. 1994)) notice (i.e. 30 days) to employees that the employer will be implementing drug testing. It is likely that an employee's privacy interest is stronger for a urine test or blood test than for a hair test. Substances: State law does not specify the substances for which tests can be run. invasion of privacy is smallest when the employee urinates in the privacy of the bathroom and simply submits the urine sample to the medical assistant. Under the Privacy Act, the more the testing intrudes on an employee's privacy interest, the stronger the employer's business interest must be to justify the test. (Harrison, 2000 WL 282446, at *3). related information should be kept private and confidential in a secure location. Courts have confirmed that results of a drug test can contain private information about an employee and that disclosing this information without having a good business reason to do so could violate the Privacy Act. (Webster, 637 N.E.2d at 207). drug tests.
50-State-Survey-Drug-Alcohol-Testing-Laws-August-2015.docx