Baughman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1199, 215 W. Va. 45, 592 S.E.2d 824 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private employer's requirement that a prospective employee submit to a drug test after receiving a conditional job offer, but before beginning employment, does not, by itself, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy.
Facts:
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. offered Stephanie Baughman a job.
- As a condition of employment, Wal-Mart required Baughman to provide a urine sample before she could begin working.
- The purpose of the urine sample was for testing to detect potential illegal drug use.
- Baughman provided the required urine sample.
- After providing the sample, Baughman began her employment with Wal-Mart.
- Baughman later left her employment at Wal-Mart for reasons unrelated to the drug test.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Baughman filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, a state trial court, alleging invasion of privacy.
- Baughman filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- Wal-Mart filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issue.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, dismissing Baughman's claim.
- Baughman (appellant) appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private employer's requirement that a prospective employee submit to a urinalysis for drug testing after being offered a job, but before starting work, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy under West Virginia common law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A private employer's pre-employment drug testing requirement for a job applicant does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. The court distinguished this case from its precedent in Twigg v. Hercules Corp., which held that drug testing current employees is an invasion of privacy absent specific safety concerns or reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that a prospective employee has a lower expectation of privacy than a current employee. Job applicants are regularly subjected to intrusive pre-employment screenings like background checks, reference checks, and medical examinations, making a urinalysis a comparatively acceptable intrusion in that context. While affirming the importance of privacy rights, the court concluded that the balance between an employer's interests and an individual's privacy is different in the pre-employment context, and Baughman failed to show any facts making this specific testing requirement an unlawful violation of her privacy.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant legal distinction in West Virginia between the privacy rights of current employees and those of prospective employees regarding drug testing. By creating a carve-out from the general privacy protections established in Twigg, the court makes it substantially more difficult for job applicants to challenge pre-employment drug screening policies by private employers. The ruling solidifies the employer's right to gather information about job candidates, suggesting that applicants implicitly consent to a lower expectation of privacy by entering the hiring process. This precedent will likely shield employers from liability for routine, non-discriminatory pre-employment drug tests.
Unlock the full brief for Baughman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.