San Francisco Employment Privacy Law Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Related Privacy Issues

In a classic case of a few bad apples ruining the barrel, drug testing practices for regulated employees are about to become stricter as a result of recent modifications by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 

On Wednesday, June 25, the DOT issued new drug testing regulations in what amounts to the most significant overhaul of the transportation industry drug and alcohol rules (codified at 49 CFR Part 40) since 2001.

The DOT frames this change as addressing “specimen validity,” and includes various mandatory tests and changes to the rules on adulterant testing, yet truly the most significant change for employers and collectors is that far more urine specimen collections must be directly observed. Commencing with the rule’s effective date, August 25, 2008, all return-to-work and follow-up urine collections must be observed collections. (In an announcement in the August 26 Federal Register, the DOT changed the effective date of observed urine collections to November 1, 2008.)

In the preamble to the new final rule, the DOT acknowledges that the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act directs the DOT to use procedures that “promote[ ], to the maximum extent practicable, individual privacy in the collection of specimen samples,” the agency stated however, that given the vast and growing numbers of products designed and marketed to beat urine drug tests, “the measure of what is the maximum extent of privacy has shifted somewhat.”

The new rule will require employees “to raise their shirts, blouses, or dresses/skirts above the waist, and lower their pants and underpants, to show the observer, by turning around, that they do not have a prosthetic device on their person. After this is done, they may return their clothing to its proper position,” and produce a specimen “in such a manner that the observer can see the urine exiting directly from the individual into the collection container.”

The DOT points out that presently, observed collections (which currently require no disarrangement of clothes and which are conducted by same-sex collectors) are required only of people who have given the collector reason to believe they have tampered with a test. The addition of mandatory observed collections for return-to-work and follow-up tests--required of workers who have tested positive for a prohibited drug in the past--are clearly designed to target those transportation workers most likely to have resumed illegal drug use, and thus have the greatest interest in ensuring a negative test result by whatever means necessary.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Trackbacks

Workplace privacy obligations continue to grow more burdensome for employers. As more information about workers becomes readily available, employers are often caught between a sense that failing to use that information may lead to negligent hiring and retention claims, and a fear that using or disseminating information that is private or protected will lead to litigation in its own right.

Littler Mendelson is a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, and a Gold Sponsor of the IAPP's "Practical Privacy Series Human Resources 2008" conference. The conference, which will take place in New York City on June 17, will cover a range of topics, including:

• "What to Do When a Human Resources Security Breach Inevitably Occurs":  A security breach involving human resources data is high-stakes for organizations. This presentation focuses on the most common causes of HR security breaches and explains from the trenches how to respond in compliance with applicable notice laws, and without a disgruntled workforce when the dust clears;
• "It's 10:00 A.M. -- Do You Know Where Your Employees Are and What They Are Doing?": New technology offers employers ever more sophisticated tools to keep tabs on their employees, but to what extent does this monitoring expose them to liability? This session examines the evolving U.S. law on these issues and discusses the challenges for global employers confronting data protection regimes modeled on the EU Data Protection Directive;
• "H.R. Risk Assessments": Safeguarding HR information often plays second fiddle to seemingly more imperative privacy data, such as patient or customer information. Yet it can be among the most sensitive at an organization. This presentation highlights key lessons learned from HR privacy risk assessments across industries, and from helping organizations remediate weaknesses in their control environments. This session looks into the logistics of operationalizing a response program and handling specific recurring incidents; 
• Littler's own Phil Gordon will speak on "Sex Offenders, Terrorists, And Video Resumes: How Far Can You Go To Get Information About Prospective, Current, And Former Employees?": With ready access to sensitive personal information, employers are under increasing scrutiny to maintain a workforce that is beyond reproach. Social networking sites, blogs and other resources offer a wealth of information on candidates and employees. How deeply should employers tap these new information sources? This presentation will help frame the debate for your own organization; and
• I'll be talking about how--and when--an employer can use sensitive medical information in the employment context in a presentation called "How To Handle Employee Health Information And Drug And Alcohol Testing In Compliance With The Alphabet Soup Of State And Federal Confidentiality Requirements": Managing employees’ health is a critical business imperative. Employers confront a maze of laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of employee health information, and dire consequences for mishandling such information. This session addresses questions on collecting, using, storing, documenting and disclosing employee health information, among other concerns.

If you are interested in these topics, or know someone who is, go to International Association of Privacy Professionals and click on the box titled "Practical Privacy Series." We'd love to see you there!

• Print
• Trackbacks

Gary Ross, the military veteran who urged his employer to accommodate his medical use of marijuana, has failed to convince the Supreme Court of California to revive his case.  On January 24, 2008, the Court affirmed (5 - 2) the trial and appellate court decisions that RagingWire Telecommunications was not required to employ Ross, who tested positive for marijuana, even though his use of the drug has been decriminalized under California’s Compassionate Use Act.

As discussed in an earlier posting, Ross argued that his former employer, RagingWire, had discriminated against him under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by terminating him because of his positive drug test which resulted form his use of marijuana for his disability.  He also alleged that he had been wrongfully discharged as a matter of public policy.  Yesterday’s decision rejects Ross’s disability discrimination claim for one simple reason:  The Compassionate Use Act provides only that individuals who use marijuana pursuant to a recommendation from a health care provider have a defense to criminal prosecution.  Noting that California voters cannot obscure federal laws which state that the drug poses a risk of abuse, the Court concluded that the Compassionate Use Act simply fails to address the rights of employers and employees.  The Court further observed that any effort to enact such a law would likely generate significant controversy, and it declined to read such a requirement into the limited protections of the statute.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Trackbacks

On November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard long-awaited arguments in the closely watched "medical marijuana" case of Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.  Gary Ross, a network administrator, was terminated eight days into his employment after testing positive for marijuana.  Ross challenged the termination because he had a doctor's recommendation that he use marijuana to relieve chronic back pain.  Ross has alleged that because his use of marijuana was lawful under California's Compassionate Use law, his employer was obligated under state law to accommodate his disability by permitting him to use marijuana as recommended by his physician.  Ross’s attorneys also argued that his discharge violated California's public policy, including California’s constitutionally created right to privacy.

Marijuana use is illegal under federal law.  California has effectively “decriminalized” marijuana use by adopting the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.  The Act allows individuals to purchase, possess, cultivate, and use small quantities of marijuana for medicinal purposes without fear of prosecution by state officials.  Federal officials may prosecute those who use marijuana pursuant to the state law, but as a practical matter, enforcement efforts are much more likely to be focused on cultivation and distribution networks.  The statutory language makes it clear that employees may not possess or use marijuana at work – leading Ross’s attorneys to argue that by implication, the law intended that employees be permitted to use the drug outside of work. Continue Reading...

• Print
• Trackbacks (1)