Which employers can do ramdon drug screens in california.

CA doesn't have a statute that specifically regulates drug testing in the private sector so it's largely up the employer, but there is case law that affects who can be tested and under what circumstances, for example, the CA Supreme Court has ruled that the state's medical marijuana law doesn't protect medical marijuana patients from drug testing (Ross v. RagingWire). If the employer is public, like a governmental entity, city transit company, etc., their rules may be different. Under Loder vs. City of Glendale, pre-employment testing is permissible, at least as part of a physical exam. This was a public sector case with ramifications for the private sector inasmuch as the state’s privacy laws apply to both sectors. Employers must demonstrate a “competing interest” such as a concern for safety in order to justify drug testing, and the testing should be fairly and consistently applied. Under Smith v. Fresno Irrigation District, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the employer’s random testing of safety-sensitive workers because the testing process was non-intrusive enough, the workers had been given plenty of notice prior to the start of testing, and there was a legitimate and justified business interest concerning the safety of the employer’s workers as well as others. Some CA courts have ruled that employees have broad privacy rights. Generally speaking, drug and alcohol testing have been deemed to be an invasion of privacy, so an employer’s request for a drug or alcohol test must be “reasonable.” An employer can require a drug or alcohol test whenever the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while at work. However, “suspicionless" types of testing are prohibited unless the employer has a reasonable business justification. CA courts have ruled that safety is a sufficient business reason for an employer to perform a suspicionless test. The bottom line is that the employer must be able to demonstrate that the drug test requirement outweighs the individual’s expectation of a right to privac, and if the job is in a safety-sensitive area, it's more likely that an employer can perform a suspicionless and random test. Disclaimer: Please note that this answer does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it is impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship.

If you mean by "random" at the employer's complete discretion, for private sector employers in California, the answer is never. On the other hand, all applicants for employment can be tested; testing for cause--after an accident is permitted if the policy is announced in advance. If the employer falls under a federal law like the Department of Transportation, federal rules, and not California rules apply.

This area of the law is a little unsettled and I know of no statute concerning it but I have not checked recent legislation. Please read the below knowing this limitation. Almost all employers can do random drug tests. Post employment testing includes random testing (for safety sensitive positions), individualized suspicion testing, post accident testing, and testing that is legally required in certain industries, such as Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements concerning truck drivers. Each of these types of testing is legally sensitive, and your employer should have a program in place before starting. Random Testing For many years lawyers reading the Hill and Loder decisions were unsure whether random or suspicionless drug tests were legal in California. In 1999, however, the court of appeal issued another decision, Smith v. Fresno Irrigation District, which upheld the employer's random drug-testing program for employees who perform safety-sensitive work. (72 Cal. App. 4th 147 (1999).) Fresno Irrigation does not suggest a formula or mechanism for determining what sort of work, and how much of it, will qualify an individual as holding a safety-sensitive position. However, the court pointedly rejected the employee's contention that only individuals who worked in positions affecting public safety could be subjected to random testing. It is enough, the court held, that the employee worked in a position in which an impairment could pose a real threat to himself or his coworkers. Moreover, the court rejected the idea that random testing was inherently unfair, noting that unlike reasonable-suspicion tests, which could be abused by supervisors holding grudges, random tests are generally triggered by a computer program and less likely to be abused. (72 Cal. App. 4th at 163—64.) Like random drug tests, suspicionless alcohol tests are permitted only for employees and applicants who hold or are seeking jobs with special safety concerns or entailing other justification. This is true nationwide, not only in California. The reason is that alcohol tests are considered medical examinations under the ADA, while drug tests are specifically exempt from the definition of what composes a medical exam. (See 42 U.S.C. § 12114(d).) Like all medical examinations, alcohol tests can be conducted only in certain circumstances and used only in a manner that is both job-related and consistent with business necessity. (42 U.S.C. § 12112(4)(A).)

Addendum to my answer Disclaimer Although the above response is believed to be accurate, it should not be relied upon as any type of legal advice. It is intended to educate the reader and a more definite answer should be based on a consultation with a lawyer. No attorney client relation is formed with me without a written contract. Good Luck starts with a strategy and a plan. Robert J. Suhajda, MS,CPA Attorney 17721 Norwalk Blvd. #43 Artesia, CA 90701 562-924-8922 Former financial auditor and controller. Admitted to US Tax Court, Income Tax, Bankruptcy, IRS representation, Fiduciary income tax returns, Estate and Gift tax returns