Skip to main content

Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)

OhioAugust 26, 2020No. 2018-1431Cited 29 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kennedy, J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal to Ohio Supreme Court; reversal of Court of Appeals decision and reinstatement of trial court judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that an at-will employee who consents without objection to direct-observation urine collection has no cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Excerpt

Torts—Employment law—Invasion of privacy—When an at-will employee consents, without objection, to the collection of the employee's urine sample under the direct-observation method, the at-will employee has no cause of action for invasion of privacy—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and common pleas court's judgment reinstated.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** An employee at Sterilite of Ohio sued the company for invasion of privacy after being required to provide a urine sample for drug testing while being directly watched by someone else. The worker claimed this direct observation violated their privacy rights, even though they had agreed to the testing without objecting at the time. **What the court decided:** The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer. The court found that since the employee was hired "at-will" (meaning they could be fired at any time) and had consented to the direct-observation drug test without raising objections, they could not later sue for invasion of privacy. The court reversed an earlier appeals court decision that had favored the employee. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling significantly limits workers' ability to challenge workplace drug testing procedures, even when they involve direct observation. If you're an at-will employee and agree to such testing without objecting in the moment, you may not be able to sue later for privacy violations. Workers should carefully consider their options before consenting to workplace procedures they find uncomfortable, as silence may be interpreted as acceptance.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Richardson-Tunnell
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 2007
Defendant Win
Clark v. Teamsters Local Union 651
E.D. Ky.Oct 2018
Mixed Result
Charles Stinson v. David E. Mensel
Tenn. Ct. App.Jul 2017

This appeal involves a dispute between landowners over an easement on Plaintiffs' property that allows the Defendants to use the easement for ingress and egress to their homes. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants unlawfully bulldozed the easement, encroached onto Plaintiffs' property, and used threats and intimidation to prevent the Plaintiffs from coming on or using the non-exclusive easement. Defendants counter-sued, alleging that the Plaintiffs were actually the ones engaging in a campaign of harassment, and that the Plaintiffs were preventing the Defendants from the peace and enjoyment of the easement, which they used as their driveway. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were liable to Defendants for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The trial court also enjoined the Plaintiffs from having any use of the easement. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and partially vacate the injunction. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the nuisance claim, reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims, and vacate the permanent injunction against Plaintiffs to the extent that it prohibits them from the lawful use of their property.

Mixed Result
Diana R Green v. Lansing Automakers Federal Credit Union
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 2019
Mixed Result
Figueroa
M.D. Fla.Nov 2025
Dismissed

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.