Rebuffing the EEOC, a federal judge has ruled that U.S. Steel can randomly test new workers for substance abuse.
The company had argued that the nature of the jobs at its Clairton Works facility, where employees wear extensive protective clothing, makes drug testing necessary. It said it was impossible to determine whether employees were impaired because they are completely covered in protective gear while working.
A former employee had challenged the practice after she tested positive for alcohol and was fired. She claimed the test was a false positive caused by her diabetes. The EEOC sued on her behalf.
The judge sided with U.S. Steel, ruling the testing was appropriate because new employees may not realize the danger of working while impaired.
Note: Have your attorney approve any random drug testing regime (that’s not required by law) to ensure that it complies with the law.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- How long must we keep unsolicited résumés?
- Cell phones, laptops and BlackBerrys: Understand the liability risks
- Independent contractor alert: Feds on the lookout for misclassification
- Establish rules on internal promotions to avoid lawsuits