KIRSCHENBAUM & KIRSCHENBAUM, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, New York 11530
516-747-6700
![]()
Drug testing employees
Question: Under what circumstances can an alarm company owner drug test his employees? In the event that it is discovered that an employee is using drugs, under what circumstances and conditions can the employee be terminated? Answer: It is in the interest of providing and maintaining safe and efficient working environment that employers drug test their employees. In New York, "The courts have uniformly held that drug testing by private employers raises no constitutional issues, nor does it so infringe on individual rights to privacy that it must be banned entirely. Therefore, in the absence of a statutory prohibition against drug testing, the practice is not per se unlawful." Accordingly, absent the passage of a statutory prohibition, it is per se permissible for a private alarm company to conduct nondiscriminatory random drug tests. From the onset of employment, employees should be notified that submitting to random drug tests is a term and condition of employment and all positive results must be properly confirmed in order to help reduce the liability for "adverse employment action."(1) Employers may deny an applicant employment or terminate the employment of a current employee based on a positive drug test. However, employers should be mindful of the fact that drug addictions can be considered a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Laws so as not to find themselves the subject of a lawsuit. While HRL §296 provides that an employer cannot discriminate because of the disability of an individual and the Mental Hygiene Law §1.03(3) defines substance dependence as a "mental disability" within the meaning of HRL §292 (2), the Courts have ruled that the HRL does not apply the term "disability" to those who are casual or social users of drugs. The HRL is designed to protect only those persons who are addicted or have been addicted to drugs, but are presently recovered, from being denied employment or terminated from employment.(3) A person who is considered to be disabled within the meaning of the HRL can be denied employment and terminated from employment. In order to take one of these "adverse employment actions," a company must either prove that due to the disability the individual would be prevented from performing the activities involved in the job in a reasonable manner, that the person constitutes a "direct threat to property or the safety of others or that the person's actions constitute disqualifying misconduct.(4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chapman, Kevin, Drug Testing of Employees and Applicants: Legal and Practical Considerations for Private Employers in New York, 66-FEB N.Y. St. B.J. 14 (2004). 2. The term disability encompasses "physical, mental or medical impairment... which prevents the exercise of normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, provided, however, that in all provisions of this article dealing with employment, the term shall be limited to physical, mental or medical conditions which do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought." 3. Barr v. Niagra Mohawk Power Corp., Case No. 5-E-D- 84-966377. 4. See Jennings v. Leon, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50858(U); Burka v. New York City Transit Authority, 680 F. Supp. 590.
![]()