NCJ Number
145780
Journal
Seton Hall Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (1993) Pages: 483-514
Date Published
1993
Length
32 pages
Annotation
To forge a compromise between competing interests of employers and employees, the courts and some legislatures have created a public policy exception to the employment-at- will doctrine; recent judicial decisions and statutory enactments, however, have recognized an employee's right to privacy as a more personal source to the public policy exception, particularly in the context of random drug testing by employers.
Abstract
The introduction of privacy into the public policy exception through employee drug testing is problematic because the employee's private activities may conflict with the interests of society as a whole. While the abuse of drugs and alcohol is considered to be one of the more dangerous problems faced by society, methods used to detect and presumptively deter this behavior engender grave privacy issues. Unregulated drug testing in the private sector can lead to unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of employees, Moreover, unreliable and inaccurate results can wrongly implicate employees in drug use. In a recent case, Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed an employee's right to privacy in the employment-at-will context and held that the employer could discharge an employee engaged in a safety-sensitive job for failing a random drug test. The Hennessey court concluded, however, that absent an overriding public interest in safety, an employer's discharge of an employee who refused to submit to a random drug test violated public policy that protects against the invasion of employee privacy. The Hennessey decision indicated the New Jersey Supreme Court's willingness to expand the rights of employees in the area of private employment, and the court properly focused on the employee's duties to establish the permissible scope of employer inquiry into private affairs. 204 footnotes