No employer may require a prospective employee to submit to a urinalysis drug test as part of its job application procedure unless:

1. The applicant is informed in writing at the time of application of the employer's intent to conduct a urinalysis drug test;

2. The test is conducted in accordance with established procedures; and

3. The applicant is given a copy of any positive urinalysis test result, but the result is not disclosed by the employer or its employees to anyone other than the applicant.

Requesting that an employee submit to drug testing

Generally, for employees, random testing is not permitted but testing may be done upon reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. There is an exception for employees in safety-sensitive positions and those participating in an employee assistance program. An employee who left employment and is currently being rehired by the same employer within 12 months of termination is excluded from the category of prospective employees. Such persons are considered employees for purposes of the state's drug testing law.

An employer may request that an employee submit to urinalysis drug testing where the employer has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which adversely affects or could adversely affect the employee's job performance. However, if the employer does not maintain the requisite reasonable suspicion, the employer could be subject to liability for violating the employee's right to privacy.

Although Connecticut appellate courts have yet to explicitly define reasonable suspicion, one Connecticut Superior Court found an employer did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to require an employee to submit to a drug test even though the employee: (1) stole from the company; (2) lied to supervisors; (3) had poor attendance; (4) borrowed substantial sums of money from the company coffee fund and other employees; and (5) had "flare ups" with other employees. The same court noted that if the employer's reasonable suspicion was based upon the employee's history of past drug use, and/or indicators that the employee was under the influence - such as slurred speech, glassy eyes, unsteady walk - these factors may have justified the employer's mandatory drug test.

Under Connecticut law, though, if an employee validly consents to drug testing, the employee effectively waives his right to challenge whether the drug test was an unreasonable search in violation of his right to privacy. Courts utilize the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an employee's consent is valid. Courts review the employee's words, acts, conduct and state of mind to ascertain whether the employee's consent to the drug test was a matter of free and unconstrained choice or a mere acquiescence to authority. Thus, where the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that an employee consents to a drug test, the employer need not have a reasonable suspicion to justify the test.

§31-51t (1992)
Prohibits certain types and testing. In general, testing is limited to employee's in high risk positions or where reasonable suspicion exists.

§31-275(1)(c) (1993)
Provides that disability or death due to use of alcohol or drugs is not a compensable injury.

§31-236 (1992)
An employee is ineligible for benefits if the employee was discharged for "just cause" or repeated willful misconduct.