APSCREEN

Top 5 tricks to cheat drug tests

We’ve been providing comprehensive background checks for pre-employment screening for a long time and we wanted to share the top 5 tricks employment applicants are using to cheat drug tests. These pose real risks to employers and could lead to negligent hiring lawsuits.

1. Rapid Detoxification — Many applicants will ingest anything from high quantities of cranberry to pickle juice, herbal concoctions and other digestive aids to cleanse the system. However, most drugs contain metabolites that stay in the body for several days and can be detected regardless of what they take to disguise the drug’s profile.
2. Shy Tester — Some applicants try to avoid the drug-screening by showing up and claiming an inability to produce the required amount of urine. This way, the tester can try to secure the position first, hoping the drug screen slips through the bureaucratic cracks. But patience is a virtue and we make the applicant wait up to three hours and even then an applicant unable to provide a specimen is asked to provide a medical explanation for their inability to void a specimen. The absence of a medical explanation results in a refusal to test which has the same consequences as a positive test.
3. The Switch — One of the most popular tricks is for an applicant to attempt to submit a ‘clean’ sample which did not come from their own body. Our process includes a step-by-step authorization, as well as a blood and urine screen, that immediately flags a sample if certain criteria, odd temperatures or unusual activity is noticed. We’ve even caught applicants trying to use unique prosthetic devices. The laboratories test every specimen to determine that it is in fact normal human urine.
4. Pleading Invasion of Privacy — Another common strategy is for an applicant to deny the employer consent to the drug-screening, hiding behind an ‘invasion of privacy’ claim. A strict well-written company policy requiring the testing will hold up in all courts throughout the United States as grounds for not hiring someone or releasing someone from employment. Besides drug testing, APSCREEN uses every other service at our means to double check the applicant’s use of money, credit, neighborhood references, driving and criminal activities among other ways to identify if the applicant is hiding a problem. When we deliver the complete report, the employer can make an educated decision about hiring the individual.
5. The Waiting Game—Other testers will concede to the drug-screening but ask for up to 90 days before showing for the test. This is a red flag that shows the applicant could be ‘dirty’ and needs time to clean up. Our process recommends the applicant be tested immediately upon being notified of selection for testing. Any delay caused by the applicant is duly noted and supplied in the final report.

According to the University of Buffalo’s Research Institute on Addictions, nearly 19 percent of on-the-job fatalities, the person dying tests positive for alcohol, drugs or both. Additionally, the federal government estimates that 71 percent of illegal drug users are employed. The Department of Transportation requires workers in the airline, railroad, trucking, pipeline, mass transit and shipping industries be regularly tested for drug use. Other non-regulated industries across the country are implementing drug free workplace programs at the request of employees in order to ensure a safer working environment.

We envision a ‘drug-free workplace’ for the safety and betterment of our economy. Our drug testing service administered by Florida Drug Screening and is Nationally Accredited for Administration of Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (NAADATP) – a unique certification received by only 65 providers in the United States from the Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA). We adhere to the highest level of service and legal compliance available as with all our services.

According to Joe Reilly of Florida Drug Screening, the key to identifying the ‘cheaters’ is consistent specimen collection procedures and use of laboratories certified by the United States Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Reilly is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Washington DC based Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA).

“This includes emptying of pockets, no overcoats or purses, or pocket books brought into the collection area, securing all sources of water, checking temperature of the specimen, observing for sights and sounds indicating falsification; and laboratory testing for adulteration and substitution,” – Joe Reilly

Reilly also said numerous Federal and State laws regulate the drug-screening industry and we like to keep our clients up to date on any specific changes that may be impacting the service.

Thomas Lawson is a Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified International Investigator and Expert Witness for lawsuits regarding negligent hiring, human resource management/compliance, employment screening as well as use, interpretation and compliance of FACTA/Fair Credit Reporting Act/CCRRA/Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Privacy) Act in the HR Context.

What happens to your business if AB 22 passes and is signed?

Well, for us, not much because the language is vague enough, and the justification for the use of the report easy enough so that those who presently use credit reports in the employment context can easily justify their continued use.

Also, like any law of this type, it is wholly subjective, and there is not really a “thou shalt not.” Only a “thou shalt be sure that the use is compliant, or justified,” so I am not really worried. About 1/3rd of our clients opt not to use them, and even in that context, we can still provide the ancillary benefits from pulling that report, (the ID verifiers, etc.) but not provide the actual meat of the credit information. We do that a lot at present for those who want the benefit of the report, but not the payment history, and that is highly compliant, even with AB 22 proposals.

Essentially the gist of the law is not to disqualify candidacy because of the PAYMENT HISTORY and if you don’t send that with the report, you are fine, but the value of the ancillaries in the report can still be included, as long as a decision is not made on payment history.

See text below. (The kicker is in paragraph 1, last part “confidential information”. Isn’t most company information “confidential” these days?; and in 2A :”managerial position” – that one is a no brainer.)

1024.5. (a) An employer shall not use a consumer credit report, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1785.3 of the Civil Code, for employment purposes unless the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) The information contained in the report is substantially job-related, meaning that the position of the person for whom the report is sought has access to money, other assets, or confidential information.

(2) The position of the person for whom the report is sought is any of the following:

(A) A managerial position.

(B) A position in the state Department of Justice.

(C) That of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position.

(D) A position for which the information contained in the report is required to be disclosed by law or to be obtained by the employer.

(b) This section does not apply to a person or business subject to Sections 6801 to 6809, inclusive, of Title 15 of the United States Code and state and federal statutes or regulations implementing those sections if the person or business is subject to compliance

oversight by a state or federal regulatory agency with respect to those laws.

(c) For purposes of this section, “managerial position” means a position held by a person who has authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or

responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of this authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.