Drug testing in the workplace

[MissMolly]

Hi! I live in NY. I was employed until yesterday as a temporary employee. My employer offered me a full time salaried job yesterday because of my satisfactory work history at their company. He requested that I go to a lab in town and get a urine drug screen which I readily did. My urine screen came back negative, but they ran a more detailed gas chomotography screen and it showed I had 43 ng of THC (marihuana) in my system. I went to a party three weeks ago and I did do some marihuana and I was a "recreactional user" in college; other than the party, I haven't smoked any marihuana since early June. I have been reading up on drug testing since yesterday. The lab my employer used was not a certified NIDA lab. NIDA's regulations state that a "negative test" is anything below 50ng. and that a second, more detailed test should not be given unless the test results from the first test (EMIT test) are positive. I feel that I was unfairly treated. Needless to say, my employer told me that I could have the SAME sample re-tested at the SAME lab at a cost to me of $400.00 or I could resign. I resigned. My employer also stated that 15 ng was the limit they set (This is so low my mother could have tested positive from her "hippie" days thirty years ago!)I also found out that if the equipment used was not properly clean after the last test, I could test positive based upon someone else's urine. What recourse do I have. I am a collge graduate and while this information is "confidential" because it's listed under "medical history", I still feel very vulnerable and violated! MOLLY

 

[TimC]

You feel violated because you tested positive for an illegal drug that you readilly admit that you used?

Bizarre...

 

[MissMolly]

Excuse me, Tim C, but I asked for a legal recourse, not a moral judgment here. If I tested negative (Below 50ng according to NIDA criteria), legally I should not have been submitted to the Gas test. You were not helpful at all, Mr. Morals! Molly

 

[bullwinkle]

Miss Molly, I'd find another job and tell the other company to shove it. I wouldn't want to work for anyone that made me pee in a cup. I always laugh when I go to Home Depot and they have all these nifty little signs about how they drug test their employees. Like it's something to be proud of, then the paint guy smells like alcohol on his breath. Oh, but those pot smokers are BAD. Gimme a break.

 

[TimC]

You stated that the lab used was not a NIDA lab. Yet you cite NIDA regulations. I see no reason why that lab would have to comply with NIDA standards. Therefore, whatever the NIDA standards have to say is irrelevant. That would be like citing Florida State law in the state of New Jersey; it just does not apply.

If the employer requests that you submit to a drug test as a condition of employment, and you agree to submit to the test, I don't see where you have room to complain. That is the reason for my first reply. It was not a moral judgement, but rather an observation that you willingly agreed to take the drug test as a condition of the employment, then failed the drug test, and now feel violated.

In order to prevail in this situation, you would have to have had an agreement on the exact form of testing, and an agreement on the potential results.

As a compromise, why don't you go back to the employer and lay the cards on the table. Tell them that you agree to remain "on probation" for a set period of time, and will submit to reasonable drug testing for that period. That gives you a chance to prove that you are not a habitual user. If the employer really does value your work they will show it.

I hope this reply was more useful than the first. Maybe eventually someone will tell you what you want to hear.