A night shift worker recently went viral on Reddit after sharing a story that had thousands of people shaking their heads. They left their jacket behind and grabbed a blanket to stay warm; they just happened to have sunglasses on their head. And that was enough for their manager to request a drug test. The worker’s response? They turned in their badge, gave two seconds’ notice, and walked away.
While the story has generated plenty of laughs on the internet, it also poses a really important question: what really constitutes "reasonable suspicion" when it comes to workplace drug testing, and are some employers abusing this tool to weed employees out the door?
What the law really says
In the US, drug testing in the workplace is governed by a combination of federal and state laws, and the rules differ depending on where you work. But the bar for suspicion-based testing isn’t supposed to be as low as “wore a blanket.”
The usual basis for reasonable suspicion of drug use has been some logical inference, such as poor coordination, slurred speech, erratic conduct, or inappropriate responses to questions. It doesn’t include getting a bit of extra warmth on a cold night shift.
Reasonable suspicion testing must be based on specific, articulable facts and observations, not on generalized suspicion or intuition, and must be documented by a trained manager or supervisor. In other words, a hunch (or in this case a blanket and a pair of sunglasses) is just not sufficient.
Some other states have taken the approach of prohibiting employers from blanket or random drug testing and instead require that testing be limited to a specific individual, where there is a true, factual basis for concern about impairment.
The unemployment loophole that workers should know about
Now it gets more calculated. Some workers and labor advocates say suspicious drug tests aren’t always about safety; they could be about money.
But every worker fired for failing or refusing to take a drug test and drawing unemployment benefits adds to the annual tax burden that an employer must pay into the state unemployment insurance fund. So employers have a financial interest in showing that an employee who refuses to take a test should be disqualified from unemployment benefits.
