## Facts

- Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C. maintained a workplace substance-abuse policy making drug testing a condition of employment and reserving the right to change the policy.
- The policy authorized urine drug testing after workplace incidents, upon reasonable suspicion, and randomly; it did not specify how samples would be collected.
- The policy treated failure to produce a valid urine sample within 2.5 hours as a refusal, which could result in immediate termination; a positive test could also lead to discipline up to termination.
- Sterilite contracted with U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group of Ohio, Inc. to administer drug testing.
- HealthWorks used a same-sex “direct-observation” method, in which a monitor accompanied the employee into a restroom and visually observed the employee provide a urine sample.
- The employees signed forms consenting to drug testing as a condition of employment; the forms did not disclose use of direct observation.
- The employees alleged they were required to expose their genitals to monitors and sued for common-law invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), asserting their consent was not voluntary because refusal risked termination.
- It was undisputed that each employee proceeded with the direct-observation test without voicing an objection at the time.

## Issues

1. Whether at-will employees may state a common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim against a private employer and its testing contractor for direct-observation urine collection when the employees consented and did not object when the method was used.
2. Whether the employees’ alleged fear of termination rendered their consent legally ineffective for purposes of an invasion-of-privacy claim at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal.
- The court held that when an at-will employee consents, without objection, to direct-observation urine collection, the employee has no cause of action for invasion of privacy based solely on that method.
- Because the pleaded facts showed consent without objection, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio recognizes the invasion-of-privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion, but consent is a complete bar to liability.
- A private employer may condition continued at-will employment on compliance with workplace drug-testing policies, subject to limited exceptions not at issue.
- An at-will employee’s submission to a direct-observation urine test without objection, in accordance with a drug-testing condition of employment, constitutes consent that defeats an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim based solely on the observation method.
- On a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true but dismiss when those facts establish a legal bar to relief (here, consent).

## Conclusion

The court held that at-will employees who submitted to direct-observation urine drug testing without objection could not maintain an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim against the employer or its testing contractor based solely on that collection method, and it reinstated dismissal for failure to state a claim.


Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., 162 Ohio St. 3d 231, 165 N.E.3d 245 (Ohio 2020)