If, by definition, the employer has 'random' drug testing in their policy what sort of latitude do they have in repeatedly testing an individual?

My employer has a habit of running multiple tests on someone when they're looking to let them go - under the guise of them being pulled for a 'random', over and over again.

...or am I grasping at straws here....

(This is a method they're using to not pay UE benefits for a layoff - and a crappy way to fvck up someone's work history to boot, just for the sake of letting them go. )

It depends on what state you are in. A lot of states don't require a reason at all for an employer to fire someone. However you could build a case based upon the fact that the drug testing was not "random". Random means every employee is put in the mix, and randomly tested. If an employer singles out 1 employee and randomly tests him or her that is discrimination.

In NC here... a "right to work" state, meaning, as you stated, they don't require a reason to let someone go. That said, if they do let a person go with cause (i.e., violation of policy, positive drug test, etc.) then the person is prohibited from filing for unemployment. This from a friend that processes claims at the state's unemployment division - she stated anyone let go under this reason is automatically denied - though they can try to appeal, they are very, very rarely granted bene's.

Should they simply let them go - without cause - that person is eligible for benefits.

She was not aware of the legalities you've covered - but I'm inclined to find your explanation very feasible.

thanks

Most states are basically "at will" employment and you can be let go anytime for anything. But they have to have a clear and valid reason still to be let go,such as being late multiple times,mouthing off to a boss/customer and etc etc.They're pretty much allowed to do whatever they want,but within certain limits on some things.

From my own personal experience with this kind of situation, those randoms certain people are getting pulled before being laid off sounds like they got caught with something in their system. Most places cant afford the 30-50$(maybe more) to get the tests professionally done. It's just not cost effective at all,especially if you dont have a corporate HQ to reimburse it. Then again i could be totally freaking wrong and they could just buy like 50 packs of the walgreens tests on wholesale lol.

__________________
I do not consent or partake in any illegal activitys involving drugs

Ours are done by Concentra - and cost is no object, this company deals in financials amounting to billions in sales per year. As a rule - if they can get 100 people out the door for the cost of a test each, rather than UE bene's for that 100 over the next 26 or 39 weeks, they'll do it.

Oddly, my probation officer uses the test strips we can buy off eBay - which simple hydration can beat (at a week or so). LOL - if my employer knew I was on probation for paraphernalia, they wouldn't even bother with testing me! "Out the door!"

I used to get randomed once a month.lol
Just be prepared and play there stupid games and out smart them at it. Its fun.lol

This is a good reason for standing up for your rights at the beginning.

Do not submit to testing. I need a job so take away all my rights. It is not leagle to fire anyone over a drug test in any state, UNLESS you give up your rights and let them.

It's time to make a stand and put a stop to the madness.

Interesting I have never seen any such laws. You mean possession based on residue I presume.

For a lot of occupations its a federal requirement. If while hired you refuse to take a random its considered the same thing as a positive and you'll never work in that occupation again.

concentra u say,i hate that place 3 docs for 200 people,at least they dont search u when u go in.