Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.
4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 129, 79 A.L.R. 4th 75, 768 P.2d 1123 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private employer may terminate an at-will employee for refusing to submit to a drug test without violating the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, as the public policy supporting employee privacy is outweighed by the competing public policy for ensuring the health and safety of workers in a dangerous work environment.
Facts:
- Paul Luedtke and Clarence Luedtke were at-will employees for Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc. (Nabors), working on oil drilling rigs, a hazardous environment.
- Paul had been previously disciplined for bringing alcohol to a worksite, and traces of marijuana had been found on his suitcase during a search.
- In October 1982, Paul gave a urine sample during a company-required physical exam, without knowing it would be tested for drugs. The test returned positive for cannabinoids.
- On November 1, 1982, Nabors officially announced its drug testing policy.
- Following his positive test, Nabors suspended Paul and required him to pass two subsequent drug tests; Paul refused to take the first required re-test.
- In mid-November 1982, Nabors posted a list of employees, including Clarence, who were required to undergo drug screening. Clarence informed Nabors he would not submit to the test as a matter of principle.
- Nabors subsequently fired both Paul and Clarence for their refusal to submit to the required drug tests.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Luedtke initiated a civil action against Nabors in trial court for claims including wrongful dismissal and invasion of privacy.
- The trial court granted Nabors' motion for summary judgment on Paul's invasion of privacy claim.
- Following a non-jury trial, the court ruled in favor of Nabors on Paul's remaining claims. Paul appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
- Clarence Luedtke filed a separate lawsuit against Nabors in trial court, alleging wrongful termination and invasion of privacy, among other claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Nabors on all of Clarence's claims. Clarence appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
- On Nabors' motion, the Supreme Court of Alaska consolidated the two appeals.
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 termination of at-will employees for refusing to submit to a urinalysis drug test violate the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, which is encompassed within the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, J.
No, the termination of at-will employees for refusing a drug test does not violate the public policy exception. Although a public policy protecting employee privacy exists in Alaska, derived from common law, statutes, and the state constitution, it is not absolute. This privacy interest must be balanced against countervailing public policies. Here, the public policy of protecting worker health and safety on dangerous oil rigs is paramount and outweighs the employees' interest in off-duty privacy. Therefore, Nabors was justified in implementing a drug testing program to determine if employees were possibly impaired on the job and in terminating the Luedtkes for refusing to comply with that policy.
Concurring - Matthews, C.J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the discharges were justified. However, I write to emphasize that a private employer may impose a condition of employment requiring employees to refrain from all use of marijuana at all times, not just near work hours. So long as proper notice is given, an employer's legitimate concerns about safety, productivity, absenteeism, and insurance costs are sufficient to justify a total abstinence policy. An employer's interest is not limited to only monitoring drug use that may directly affect on-the-job performance.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the framework for analyzing private-sector drug testing in Alaska under the at-will employment doctrine. It affirms that a wrongful discharge claim can be based on a violation of public policy, specifically the right to privacy. However, the court's use of a balancing test demonstrates that this privacy right is not absolute and can be overcome by an employer's substantial interest in workplace safety. This decision provides legal justification for employers, particularly in safety-sensitive industries, to implement drug testing policies, provided they are reasonable and employees are given notice.
