Is it illegal to pose as someone for job drug test?

[Zigner]

Employment is not a priveldge.

Yes, it is a privilege. Generally speaking, there is no requirement that an employer hire a particular person.

It is a contractual relationship between a buyer (employer) and seller (worker) of labor.

Yes, that's true, but there's no right to create such a contract, so it's a privilege.

Many kinds of contracts and contractual conditions are not allowed, quite sensibly, because of the inherent enequal power dynamic between worker and employer.

True, but that doesn't change the whole "right vs privilege" situation. An employer doesn't HAVE to hire somebody (generally).

 

[Cdowns81]

Yes it is illegal. It is identity theft quite frankly. You can be charged with that. How much prison time do you want to face?

Are you being dramatic or are you serious? How is it identity theft if he's asking me to do it...? And who would prosecute me and send me to jail...?

I feel like you're being a little dramatic...

 

[Cdowns81]

It might be - there are too many variables specific to the situation for us to do anything other than hazard a guess.

Right ok, that's fair. Thanks for at least trying though.

 

[quincy]

To defraud someone means to knowingly obtain by deception some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause by deception some detriment to another.

By using your urine instead of his own, your brother is committing fraud. He is deceiving the employer to obtain employment for himself.

Even without your urine (or synthetic urine), your brother is a smoker. Whether he is aware of it or not, he smells like a smoker.

He can be retested at any time if there is a reasonable suspicion his urine test was faked.

Your brother will either not be hired (because he smells like smoke) or, if hired, he can be fired (for smelling like smoke, for failing another surprise urine test).

It is best for him to employer-search. Not all employers are looking for only non smokers.

 

[Cdowns81]

To defraud someone means to knowingly obtain by deception some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause by deception some detriment to another.

By using your urine instead of his own, your brother is committing fraud. He is deceiving the employer to obtain employment for himself.

Even without your urine (or synthetic urine), your brother is a smoker. Whether he is aware of it or not, he smells like a smoker.

He can be retested at any time if there is a reasonable suspicion his urine test was faked.

Your brother will either not be hired (because he smells like smoke) or, if hired, he can be fired (for smelling like smoke, for failing another surprise urine test).

It is best for him to employer-search. Not all employers are looking for only non smokers.

Sorry, by social smoker I meant he smokes when he goes to meet friends at a bar on the weekend, or goes to a concert or whatever. He doesn't smoke during the week at all. I used to be the same many years back before getting married. So no, normally he doesn't smell like smoke and yes he is definitely quitting smoking socially now if hired by this company. Since he's not a regular smoker he thinks he can stop with little issue. I know I did, and he's thinking will be similar.

 

[xylene]

right vs privilege

No priveldge. And rights and priveldge are not opposites. At will employment doesn't make work a privilege either.

Adult US citizens broadly speaking have the right to seek work in legal occupations. Employers, broadly speaking, have the right to make hiring decisions that are not prohibited by law (ie no illegal discrimination) The intersection of 2 rights is NOT a privilege.

Discriminating against smokers in this way should be illegal, and is is in many states.

 

[xylene]

Tell your brother to take a bunch of golden seal and B vitamins each day for at least 3 days before the test and drink double his normal intake of water and eat healthy protein rich meals. He'll be clean.

 

[Taxing Matters]

It's time for everyone to stop using tobacco.

Private employers ferreting out smokers with dubious drug testing regimes is not the way. It rewards cheaters and punishes the addicted. Therefore It is stupid and worse than that consolidates employer control of the the private lives of workers which is particularly odious when applied to legal conduct.

That you consider the employer's legal conduct obnoxious and wrong does not justify the OP and his brother's wrongful and possibly illegal scheme as a way to fight it. You've heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right", have you not? That certainly applies here.

Smokers are free to lobby the state legislature to pass bills that prohibit employers from discriminating against them for smoking outside of work. At least two states have such laws, so it is not impossible to get that sort of thing passed. Employees may also unionize and get in their collective bargaining agreements provisions that protect their right to do legal things outside of work without negative action by the employer. So there are options here.

And, of course, giving up smoking is also an option. Smoking is a harmful activity with no positive health benefits that costs the smoker a lot of money and also costs society at large as well.

 

[quincy]

Sorry, by social smoker I meant he smokes when he goes to meet friends at a bar on the weekend, or goes to a concert or whatever. He doesn't smoke during the week at all. I used to be the same many years back before getting married. So no, normally he doesn't smell like smoke and yes he is definitely quitting smoking socially now if hired by this company. Since he's not a regular smoker he thinks he can stop with little issue. I know I did, and he's thinking will be similar.

In that case, your brother should avoid social activities for awhile and then use his own urine for the drug testing.

I hope he is able to quit smoking.

 

[Cdowns81]

To defraud someone means to knowingly obtain by deception some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause by deception some detriment to another.

By using your urine instead of his own, your brother is committing fraud. He is deceiving the employer to obtain employment for himself.

Even without your urine (or synthetic urine), your brother is a smoker. Whether he is aware of it or not, he smells like a smoker.

He can be retested at any time if there is a reasonable suspicion his urine test was faked.

Your brother will either not be hired (because he smells like smoke) or, if hired, he can be fired (for smelling like smoke, for failing another surprise urine test).

It is best for him to employer-search. Not all employers are looking for only non smokers.

But yes I agree that he (and I if I agree) would be deceiving this company to gain benefit for him. I guess I justify that myself by looking at the fact that he isn't a regular smoker and will not continue smoking if hired. Does that make it ok? No not really, but makes it easier to accept for me I guess.

It's a tough choice, but he has 2 kids and has been looking for work and didn't know that this was a tobacco free company when he applied. He just got that info when offered the job I guess. I mean he prob missed it up front in the application fine print, but whatever. But back to my point, he isn't a regular smoker, but did have prob 5 this past sunday, so he's afraid when he tests tomorrow it may still be in his system. The whole thing just feels so silly to me, that someone would lose out on a job that he's very capable of doing, because he smokes a few cigs at a concert or whatever here and there? I guess that's why I'm making questionable choices to help him out.

 

[Zigner]

No priveldge. And rights and priveldge are not opposites. At will employment doesn't make work a privilege either.

Adult US citizens broadly speaking have the right to seek work in legal occupations. Employers, broadly speaking, have the right to make hiring decisions that are not prohibited by law (ie no illegal discrimination) The intersection of 2 rights is NOT a privilege.

Discriminating against smokers in this way should be illegal, and is is in many states.

If he has no inherent right to work there, then working there is a privilege, just as the employer has the privilege of hiring the employee.

As to the rest, you have your opinion on the matter, but please don't let that intrude on the legal question that the OP has.

 

[Taxing Matters]

No priveldge. And rights and priveldge are not opposites. At will employment doesn't make work a privilege either.

That much of what you've said I agree with.

 

[Cdowns81]

In that case, your brother should avoid social activities for awhile and then use his own urine for the drug testing.

I hope he is able to quit smoking.

Right same thing I said, but the company says he has to take the test within 48 hrs from the offer, which was yesterday. He's thinking maybe since his last cig was Sunday that he could be fine taking the test himself tomorrow. He was just paranoid about missing out on the job so wanted my help.

I googled and apparently nicotine and related agents only show up in urine for 4 days. So thankfully I'm thinking he can just take it himself.

 

[quincy]

But yes I agree that he (and I if I agree) would be deceiving this company to gain benefit for him. I guess I justify that myself by looking at the fact that he isn't a regular smoker and will not continue smoking if hired. Does that make it ok? No not really, but makes it easier to accept for me I guess.

It's a tough choice, but he has 2 kids and has been looking for work and didn't know that this was a tobacco free company when he applied. He just got that info when offered the job I guess. I mean he prob missed it up front in the application fine print, but whatever. But back to my point, he isn't a regular smoker, but did have prob 5 this past sunday, so he's afraid when he tests tomorrow it may still be in his system. The whole thing just feels so silly to me, that someone would lose out on a job that he's very capable of doing, because he smokes a few cigs at a concert or whatever here and there? I guess that's why I'm making questionable choices to help him out.

It is certainly possible he could lose the job opportunity if he fails the drug test tomorrow. It is also possible that he won't.

If he fails the test and is not hired, at least it might give him a greater incentive to quit smoking.

But, again, neither you nor he should fake the test.

 

[Zigner]

That much of what you've said I agree with.

Perhaps the use of the word "privilege" is the semantic sticking point. Replace "privilege" with "opportunity"... does that work better? In any case, there is definitely no "right" to be hired, nor is there any continuing right to work there once hired. Of course, this is absent any other contractual agreement(s), illegal discrimination matters, statutory requirements, etc.