Court Upholds Job Applicant Drug Tests

In the first ruling of its kind in California, a state appeals court Friday upheld a private company’s drug testing of its job applicants.

Conducted under proper safeguards, mandatory urine testing of applicants at a legal publishing firm in Alameda County is only a “limited invasion of their privacy” and does not violate the state Constitution, the 1st District Court of Appeal said.

The 3-0 decision upheld a pre-employment drug and alcohol screening program at Matthew Bender & Co., a subsidiary of the Times Mirror Co. The program has been operating since June, 1988, when the same court lifted an order by Superior Court Judge Michael Ballachey blocking drug testing.

The court specified that its ruling applied only to testing of applicants and not to employees, whose rights against testing may be greater. That issue was left unresolved.

“From the perspective of the right of employers to select the most qualified applicants, this case is a great victory in dealing with substance abuse issues in the workplace,” said Victor Schachter, a lawyer for both companies.

He said many companies that have delayed drug testing to await the outcome of the case have been given “a strong message that a properly designed drug program will meet constitutional muster.”

Steven Mayer, a lawyer for job applicants who challenged the program, called the decision “appalling.”

The ruling “gives a green light to employers throughout the state to test applicants without any basis for belief that even a single applicant is a potential drug abuser,” he said. “Matthew Bender had no reason whatever to believe that any job applicant had ever or would ever use drugs or alcohol in an abusive way.”

He said no decision had been made yet on an appeal to the state Supreme Court. That court, however, is likely to make the ultimate decision on the testing in California of private employees and applicants and others outside the government sphere, such as college athletes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld drug testing of certain railroad workers and U.S. Customs Service employees, citing the sensitive nature of the jobs in both cases.

Friday’s ruling contained one victory for opponents of drug testing: The court said the state Constitution’s guarantee of privacy applied to private conduct, unlike the U.S. Constitution, which regulates only government intrusions.