Collecting of Hair Samples for Drug Tests May Be Legal

Question: At my company, seven of the 300 employees were selected for a drug test. We had to provide a hair sample as well as a urine sample.

Since a hair test would show medical conditions and other vital information, isn’t this an invasion of privacy?

I was fired after the hair test results. I had used a controlled substance on my vacation 90 days earlier. It in no way affected my job performance when I returned.

What can I do?

--L.B., North Hills

Answer: It depends how you were selected for the test and the language of your employer’s substance abuse policy.

If you were selected because your employer had reasonable suspicion that you had been using drugs, your test and subsequent termination would be legal.

Reasonable suspicion can arise from such things as impaired job performance, job-related accidents that might suggest drug use, erratic attendance, suspicious behavior or reports from witnesses who saw you using drugs.

If you were selected purely at random, the test and termination may be unlawful, unless you are employed in law enforcement or the transportation industry.

California law does not permit random drug testing of employees in most jobs.

The fact that hair samples were tested does not constitute an unlawful invasion of your privacy.

You should check the employer’s policy. If it prohibits employees only from coming to work “under the influence” of drugs, you could argue your termination did not conform to policy.

If the policy prohibits employees from coming to work with drugs “in their system,” however, it would cover traces of drugs found in a hair test.

--James J. McDonald Jr.

Attorney, Fisher & Phillips

Labor law instructor, UC Irvine

*

Q: I work for a company that has more than 100 employees. Most are hourly while the rest, such as myself, are salaried.

Hourly employees are paid every two weeks, while salaried employees are paid on the 15th and last day of every month.

When both pay periods recently landed on the same day--the 15th--the company delayed paying salaried workers a day, saying the payroll company could not process checks for both types of workers.

We were not told this in advance. We found out only after inquiring when we discovered that the money had not been deposited in our bank accounts.

Isn’t our employer required to pay us on our posted pay date? We are being told that because the pay period is technically through the 15th, they aren’t required to pay until the end of the month.

Would the company be required to pay any overdraft fees workers faced because of the delay?

--G.G., Orange

A: For 65 years, California law has required employers to establish regular paydays and to post in a conspicuous place a notice specifying the time and place of payment. Hourly and salaried employees alike are entitled to receive their paychecks on the regular payday.

Although state law does not permit employees to recover overdraft fees when a payment is late, management can be criminally prosecuted for violating these requirements. In addition, the State Division of Labor Standards Enforcement can recover a penalty of $50 per employee for a first offense, and $100 per employee for each violation thereafter.

--Joseph L. Paller Jr.

Union, employee attorney

Gilbert & Sackman

*

Q: After I was hired, I was told that the hospital where I work requires CPR training for admitting and security departments.

Although I was required to take a class at the hospital, I was not compensated for the time and had to pay a fee for the class.

Are there laws about this?

--P.C., Fullerton

A: An employer must pay for the time and cost of training its employees. The Labor Code requires an employer to reimburse an employee for all expenses related to his or her job duties.

Certainly, the employer would not have to cover the cost of optional education or training obtained by an employee.

In this case, it’s also significant that the training is required of current employees. Had a certain level of education or training been required as a condition of new employment, the cost would have been the employee’s responsibility.

--Don D. Sessions

Employee rights attorney

Mission Viejo

*

If you have a question about an on-the-job situation, please mail it to Shop Talk, Los Angeles Times, P.O. Box 2008, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; dictate it to (714) 966-7873, or e-mail it to shoptalk@latimes.com. Include your initials and hometown. The Shop Talk column is designed to answer questions of general interest. It should not be construed as legal advice. Recent Shop Talk columns are available at www.latimes.com/shoptalk.