Close Window

Drug Testing Using Direct Observation Not Invasion of Privacy

In the case Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., 2020-Ohio-4193, 2020 Ohio LEXIS 1907, an Ohio appellate court found that a trial court correctly determined that the former at-will employees failed to sufficiently plead invasion-of-privacy claims, arising from the private employer’s implementation of a workplace substance-abuse policy requiring the employees to submit a urine sample for drug testing under the “direct-observation method” because the employees consented, without objection, to the collection of their urine samples under the direct-observation method. The employees’ claim that their consent was involuntary due to their fear of termination lacked merit, because the employer had the right to condition employment on consent to drug testing under the direct-observation method, the employees had the right to refuse to submit to the direct-observation method, and the employer had the right to terminate the employees for their failure to submit.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.