Drug testing - Massachusetts

Massachusetts does not have a drug testing law. However, case law impacts how drug testing can be conducted in the state. Random testing is allowed for employees in safety-sensitive positions, but is not allowed for other employees. Reasonable suspicion tests are allowed.

In Folmsbee v. Tech Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., the court ruled that a company’s drug testing policy was reasonable in light of the nature of the employer’s business, evidence of employee drug use, and the procedures used to guarantee privacy that were used by the medical center conducting the tests.

An employee had claimed that the mandatory drug testing program interfered with her right to privacy. The court balanced the employer’s legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy.

The nature of the company’s business required extreme alertness and precision, and a slight error could result in harm to employees and customers. The employer had a strong basis for suspecting that employees were using drugs (an owner smelled marijuana smoke, and marijuana cigarette butts had been found in a company restroom). The court ruled that the employee did not have grounds for her claim.

In Webster v. Motorola, Inc., the court ruled that a random drug testing program is reasonable for an employee in a safety-sensitive position, but not for an employee in position that is not safety-sensitive.

A manufacturing company did pre-employment, for-cause, and random testing. Under the random program, each employee was selected at least once in a three-year period. Two employees brought a lawsuit against the company and claimed that drug testing interfered with their right to privacy. The court balanced the employees’ interest in privacy against the employer’s interest in determining whether employees are using drugs. It looked at the nature of the business and the employee’s duties.

One employee’s responsibilities required him to drive a company vehicle 20,000 to 25,000 miles per year. The other employee was a technical editor. The court determined that a company’s general interest in protecting the safety of employees and providing them with a drug-free working environment is not sufficient to justify a random drug testing program. However, a company has an added interest in assuring that an employee not operate a motor vehicle when intoxicated by drugs. This outweighs an individual’s right to privacy.

While a company’s random drug testing policy is permissible for safety-sensitive employees the court held that it is not reasonable for employees who are not in safety-sensitive positions. The technical editor’s job was not sufficiently safety sensitive to justify random drug testing.