Ad
related to: employee drug testing policy sample form 54a excel
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Workplaces in the United States must display this poster explaining the Employment Polygraph Protection Act to employees. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) is a United States federal law that generally prevents employers from using polygraph (lie detector) tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.
These policies are commonly included as part of an employment contract. [5] While the majority of states have legalized marijuana in some form, covered employers are still required to treat marijuana use as a disciplinable offense under the Drug-Free Workplace Act, as it is still considered a controlled substance under federal law.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment and its implication on drug testing programs. The majority of the Court upheld the drug testing program in the United States Customs Service.
Drug-testing a blood sample measures whether or not a drug or a metabolite is in the body at a particular time. These types of tests are considered to be the most accurate way of telling if a person is intoxicated. Blood drug tests are not used very often because they need specialized equipment and medically trained administrators.
Integrity testing for employment selection became popular during the 1980s. [2] Human Resources personnel found integrity tests were an improvement over polygraph tests . Polygraph tests were no longer able to be used for screening of most future employees in the United States due to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA). [ 2 ]
Employment testing is the practice of administering written, oral, or other tests as a means of determining the suitability or desirability of a job applicant. The premise is that if scores on a test correlate with job performance , then it is economically useful for the employer to select employees based on scores from that test.
The policy extended to off-campus and after-school conduct, but the controversy reached the general efficacy and constitutionality of drug testing policies. [ 7 ] Opposing the policy were local student groups and the local Oregon American Civil Liberties Union , which had advocated on behalf of various students expelled by the Ashland School ...
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002), was a case by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for public schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities.