Similarly, in Transportation Institute v. To date, there have only been a handful of cases won by private sector employees who either refused to take the test on privacy grounds and were fired, or whose test results were inaccurate. Those same states and Rhode Island limit testing of current employees to those actually suspected of using drugs to the detriment of their job performance.
City of Detroit, F. The judicial silence on these issues may result in part from the growing uniformity of public-and private-sector testing programs, promoted by statutes like the DFWA and OTETA, which impose stringent restrictions on the sanctions that can be imposed for positive test results and on the disclosure of those results.
However, private entities and state agencies may in particular states be barred by state law from engaging in drug testing in circumstances in which federal law and the U. Fearing that a patchwork of restrictive laws would deter employers, especially multistate employers, proponents of drug testing have sought to create national standards for drug testing through federal laws that preempt state and local legislation.
While this standard is easy to articulate, it has no clear meaning. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Montana further limit testing to employees holding safety-sensitive jobs. At least some other courts, however, have relied on Harmon in job applicant cases and have not made this bootstrap argument Georgia Ass'n of Educators v.
Many states require that there must be reasonable suspicion to test an employee, and employers that have not complied with this requirement have been successfully sued.
The Supreme Court, this time by a vote, once again held that neither probable-cause nor reasonable suspicion were needed to test government employees in "sensitive" positions. Drug residue remains in hair for a much longer period of time than it does in urine or blood.