## Facts

- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. required job applicants who received an offer of employment to submit to a drug screen as a condition of being hired.
- Stephanie Baughman received a job offer from Wal-Mart that required her to complete the pre-employment screening.
- After receiving the offer but before starting work, Baughman provided a urine sample for testing.
- Baughman began working for Wal-Mart after providing the sample.
- Baughman later sued Wal-Mart, alleging that requiring a pre-employment urine test was **per se** an actionable invasion of privacy.
- Baughman did not base her claim on allegations that the sample collection was conducted in a humiliating or coercive manner, that test results were publicly disclosed or misused, or that she suffered an adverse job action because of the test.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart, and Baughman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a private employer’s requirement that a prospective employee submit to a pre-employment urine drug test, standing alone, constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy under West Virginia law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for Wal-Mart.
- The court held that Wal-Mart’s standard, pre-employment urinalysis requirement—without additional facts showing an unreasonable or highly offensive intrusion—was not an actionable invasion of privacy.
- The court declined to treat pre-employment testing of applicants as automatically governed by earlier West Virginia cases addressing drug testing of existing employees, including *Twigg v. Hercules Corp.*.

## Legal Principles

- West Virginia recognizes invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, which requires an intentional intrusion into a private matter that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- A claim based only on the existence of a generally used pre-employment screening practice is insufficient; liability depends on the context and manner of the alleged intrusion (for example, degrading collection methods, improper dissemination of results, or similar aggravating conduct).
- A person seeking employment has a reduced expectation of privacy in standard hiring-screen procedures compared with a current employee subjected to testing during an ongoing employment relationship.
- West Virginia precedent scrutinizing drug-testing programs for current employees does not create a blanket rule that pre-employment drug testing by private employers is unlawful or automatically actionable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for Wal-Mart because Baughman alleged only that Wal-Mart required a pre-employment urine drug test after extending her a job offer, and she did not allege facts showing a highly offensive intrusion, improper disclosure, or any adverse employment consequence tied to the test.


Baughman v. Wal-Mart Stores, 215 W. Va. 45, 592 S.E.2d 824 (2003)