## Facts

- The City of Glendale adopted a drug and alcohol testing program requiring urinalysis as part of a preplacement medical examination.
- Testing applied to (1) all individuals conditionally offered new positions and (2) all current city employees conditionally offered promotions to new positions.
- The policy applied across all city positions without individualized suspicion of drug or alcohol abuse.
- Urine samples were collected during the medical exam and tested for illegal drugs and alcohol; an unexplained positive result disqualified the candidate from hiring or promotion.
- A city taxpayer sued to enjoin expenditures on the program, alleging violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), the Fourth Amendment, and the California Constitution’s privacy clause.
- The trial court and Court of Appeal largely invalidated the across-the-board program; the California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the city’s collection and use of drug-testing results violated the CMIA.
2. Whether mandatory urinalysis for drugs and alcohol constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether suspicionless testing of all current employees offered promotions, regardless of job duties, violates the California constitutional right to privacy (and the Fourth Amendment).
4. Whether suspicionless testing of new job applicants as part of a uniformly administered preemployment medical exam is constitutionally permissible.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.
- The program did not violate the CMIA.
- Urinalysis testing constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- The program was unconstitutional insofar as it required drug testing for every current employee offered a promotion without regard to the nature of the position sought.
- The program was constitutional as applied to new job applicants when administered uniformly and reasonably as part of a lawful preemployment medical examination.

## Legal Principles

- Mandatory urinalysis drug testing by a public employer is a “search” and must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and California’s privacy protections.
- Under California’s constitutional privacy clause, suspicionless testing must be supported by sufficiently weighty governmental interests and must be appropriately tailored to those interests.
- A blanket rule testing all current employees seeking promotions, without considering job-related safety or security justifications, is overbroad and violates California privacy rights.
- Suspicionless preemployment testing of new applicants may be permissible when uniformly applied within a standard preemployment medical exam and used for legitimate employment purposes.
- CMIA liability generally turns on improper disclosure or misuse of medical information; employment screening programs with limited, employment-related handling of results may fall outside the statute’s prohibitions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld uniform, preemployment urinalysis testing of new applicants conducted within a standard medical exam, but invalidated across-the-board suspicionless testing of current employees seeking promotion because it was not tailored to positions with stronger safety or security justifications and therefore violated California’s constitutional privacy guarantee.


Loder v. City of Glendale, 927 P.2d 1200 (Cal. 1997)