HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

After Lanier refused to take the test, claiming it was an invasion of her privacy, the library withdrew its offer. Lanier then sued the library, alleging that a pre-employment drug and alcohol test constituted unreasonable search and seizure—a practice barred by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as the Oregon state constitution.

A district court found the testing policy unconstitutional. That ruling was later reversed on appeal. However, the appellate court said jobs that keep the public safe—for example, the role of police officer—could constitutionally require pre-employment drug and alcohol testing. At the same time, the court ruled that “suspicionless” screening—that is, testing candidates where no suspicion of substance abuse exists—is not justified.

Employers should keep state and federal law in mind if they contemplate imposing pre-employment drug testing on job candidates.

Question

As an employer, how would you handle the matter of pre-employment screening in your industry?

Write at least a couple of paragraphs giving your reasoning on how you would handle the question above.

Case: Lanier v. Woodburn, 9th Cir., No. 06-35262 (3/13/08), 518 F.3d 1147; 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5353.