If the employee is not working in an area that "involves public safety or sensitive government policies", the courts may disallow drug testing (Bergman and Berman-Barrett, 2008, p.70). Limiting drug testing is based on the provisions of probable cause, and the search and seizure protections in the constitution. The federal government justifies drug testing using the legal theory that the potential for harm must outweigh the damage inflicted by the loss of the subject of constitutional rights. In any event, employees in private employment should have the same protections as a government employee. Without probable cause, IE obvious intoxication, the employee should not have to submit to an invasive search of his blood or breath.
Employees are protected from discrimination in their compensation based primarily on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Equal pay and compensation discrimination, 2009). The 1963 act was meant to target gender discrimination, but subsequent acts have focused on minority status, age, and disabilities (Equal pay and compensation discrimination, 2009). The 1963 Act prohibits paying different rates of pay based on gender when the employees are equal in skill, effort, and responsibility (Equal pay act of 1963, 2009). Women have argued for gender equality, and the 1963 Act was keeping with our country's tradition of fairness and reflected a fundamental shift away from the traditional roles of men and women (Persily, Citrin, and Egan, 2008, p.158). However, the equality of pay also depresses overall wages and benefits business the most. Artificially higher pay for women attracts more women to the labor pool, and this surplus of labor drives down wages (Sowell, 2004, p.163). The fact that we have complied with the principles of gender equality does not fairly compensate for the economic loss incurred in the labor market, and gender should not be considered as a criterion for pay equality.