How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask LawHelpNow Your Own Question
LawHelpNow, Attorney/Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 7639
Experience:  Relax. Let's work together. Practical solutions.
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
LawHelpNow is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Our 911 center director recently made several employees take

Resolved Question:

Our 911 center director recently made several employees take a drug test, even though our drug policy only says it is "against policy to use alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs within four hours of a shift, or on the premises." It says nothing about routine testing. Now the director's boss says that she must turn all tests over to them, but the director is saying that since we didn't have a drug policy in place, with all employees signing an acknowledgment of such policy that nothing can be done even if some of the employees tested positive. The director says the results have not been looked at and are under lock, because she feels they were illegally obtained, and can't show the boss without a waiver. Can they force the employees to sign a waiver, and is the director right that they were illegally obtained without a strict drug policy in place and should be considered private health tests?
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  LawHelpNow replied 8 years ago.

Hello and thanks for choosing Just Answer®. I am a licensed attorney, and I will be glad to try and assist you. To provide you with accurate information, could you please clarify this point:


  1. What is the jurisdiction (state) in question?


Once I hear back from you, I will be glad to let you know my answer. There may be some delay as I am assisting other customers or am away from my computer. Please rest assured, however, that I will get back to you as soon as possible.



Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Expert:  LawHelpNow replied 8 years ago.

Hello and thanks so much for choosing this forum to pose your important legal question. I will do my best to give you some honest and accurate guidance as I answer your question.


  1. I am a licensed attorney, and I will be glad to try and answer your question. I hope that the following information will be helpful to you, but please just write back if you have any follow-up questions or need clarification on anything after reviewing the following information. Thank you for taking the time to write back and supply the additional requested information, which was helpful to my analysis of your inquiry. I would be glad to interact with you further if needed after you click "Accept" to process my answer.
  2. Based on what you have related here, the primary source of statutory guidance comes from the Drug-Free Public Work Force Act for Public Employees, codified at Missouri Revised Statutes §§105.1100 to(NNN) NNN-NNNN To answer your direct questions, the employees cannot be forced to sign a waiver. As to the legality of what took place here, Missouri law is rather vague in this regard. The most clear legislative directive became effective October 1, 2006. However, this statutory change only regards XXXXX XXXXX an employee from unemployment benefits, which is obviously not really applicable here.
  3. Having said all of that, I would side with the argument that in the absence of an established policy the testing was performed without justification. Thus, the results should be kept confidential (actually, they should be destroyed) and not used against any employee in an adverse fashion. The employer is free to establish a routine testing policy and conduct such testing thereafter, but to use these results obtained under these circumstances would expose the employer to liability for retaliatory/discriminatory testing. The botXXXXX XXXXXne is I agree that what took place here was improper and without a sound basis in law.


I hope that this information has been helpful to you. If we can be of any further assistance please free to use our service again. Best wishes for a successful outcome.


If my answer has been helpful to you, please click "ACCEPT" so that I may be paid. This is the only way that I will receive compensation for the work performed. Please consider clicking "BONUS" as a nice way of saying "thanks" for a job well done. Clicking "FEEDBACK" to leave your positive comments is always greatly appreciated.


The information provided is general in nature only and should not be construed as legal advice. By using this forum, you acknowledge that no attorney-client relationship has been created between you and Benjamin M. Burt, Jr., Esq. You should always consult with a lawyer in your state.

LawHelpNow and 5 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you