(1997) 14 Cal.4th 846
Supreme Court of California · Decided January 6, 1997
01. Facts
The City of Glendale adopted a 1986 drug-testing program requiring all individuals conditionally offered new positions — both newly hired persons and current city employees approved for promotion — to undergo urinalysis for illegal drugs and alcohol as part of a pre-placement medical examination (14 Cal.4th at p. 852). The testing requirement applied to all city positions without regard to whether the job was safety-sensitive (id. at p. 852). A challenge followed, contending the program violated constitutional privacy and search protections (id. at p. 852).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court upheld suspicionless testing of job applicants but held the program could not be applied to current employees seeking promotion absent individualized suspicion or a safety-sensitive justification, reversing in part (14 Cal.4th at p. 852).
03. Issue
Whether a public employer may require suspicionless drug testing of (a) job applicants who have received a conditional offer and (b) current employees seeking promotion, consistent with constitutional privacy and search protections.
Holding
A public employer may require suspicionless drug testing of job applicants as part of a lawful pre-employment medical examination, because applicants’ privacy expectations are lower and such testing is a reasonable hiring practice; but it may not impose the same blanket, suspicionless testing on current employees seeking promotion, for whom greater privacy protections apply absent individualized suspicion or a genuine safety-sensitive need.
05. Reasoning
Applying constitutional privacy and reasonableness principles, the court distinguished applicants from incumbent employees. Pre-employment medical exams (including drug screens) are an accepted, expected part of the hiring process, and applicants can decline the conditional offer; the intrusion is therefore reasonable. Incumbent employees, by contrast, have an established employment relationship and greater privacy expectations, so subjecting them to suspicionless testing merely because they seek promotion is not justified without an individualized or safety-based rationale.
Practice Pointer
Loder draws the practical line for workplace drug testing: applicant testing is broadly permissible, but testing current employees generally requires individualized suspicion or a safety-sensitive justification. Employee-side counsel should scrutinize testing imposed on incumbents (including for promotions or randomly) and challenge blanket, suspicionless testing of non-safety-sensitive current employees under Hill and Loder.
06. Open questions
Loder addressed applicant and promotional testing but left the precise boundaries of permissible testing of current employees — including random testing and the definition of “safety-sensitive” positions — to further development under the Hill privacy framework and federal search-and-seizure law.
Cite this entry
Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846.
“all individuals who conditionally have been offered new positions with the city … are required to undergo urinalysis testing for a variety of illegal drugs and alcohol as part of a preplacement medical examination.” — 14 Cal.4th at p. 852
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].