Navigation

Ohio Drug Laws

The State Ex Rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Ohio, No. 2001-0642, 12/18/02

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a state law that permits warrantless drug and alcohol testing of injured workers violates protections against unreasonable searches granted by the Fourth Amendment and the Ohio Constitution.

The Ohio law in question required all workers injured on the job to submit to a chemical test, regardless of whether the employer had a reason to believe the injury was caused by intoxication or the use of a controlled substance. If the test revealed prohibited levels of alcohol or controlled substances, a legal presumption arose that the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance caused the employee's injury. Further, if employees refused to be tested, it would be presumed that they used drugs or alcohol and that the use caused the injury, thereby excluding the employees from workers' compensation benefits.

Members of the AFL-CIO and UAW brought suit asking that the Ohio statute he declared unconstitutional.

Normally, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches--even arbitrary ones--undertaken by a private party on its own initiative. In this instance, however, the coercive power of the legislation so entangled the state's action with private action as to justify constitutional scrutiny.

In general, the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure is judged by balancing its intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of a legitimate governmental interest.

Applying that rubric, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the law violates both the federal and state constitutions. The court held that an employee's expectation of privacy outweighs any special needs asserted by the state.

The court contrasted this with situations in which public safety was paramount or where employees worked directly with drugs or firearms.

RELATED ARTICLE: Professional Pointer

This case finds only that the Ohio legislature overstepped constitutional bounds in eraction the chllenged law. As a general principle, private employers have brod discretion. In conducting not-for-cause the "" unless speicifically limited by statute on judicial precedent. What constitutes good practice however will depend on the circumtances.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Society for Human Resource Management
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group