Implications of Supreme Court’s Strip Search Case for Employers

In a previous post, I called attention to a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court about the legality of a strip search of a student at school. What the Court decides in such a case can always have implications for workplace privacy issues and employer search policies. The Court has now decided Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.

In this case, a public school had a policy prohibiting the possession of prescription and over-the-counter drugs as well as unlawful drugs. A 13-year-old student was reported to be in possession of such drugs. Because of her friendship with another student suspected of drug involvement and certain items found in the 13-year-old’s day planner, the assistant principal ordered that school staff members search the 13-year-old in private.

She was required to remove outer clothing and then her bra and underpants. She complied, but no drugs were found. The student’s mother sued the school for violating her daughter’s Fourth Amendment rights. Whether a public or government employer is sued for a search and seizure Fourth Amendment violation or a private employer is sued for invasion of privacy because of a search, the standard is the same: Did the individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

The Supreme Court ruled against the school, finding the school’s suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusiveness of the search. According to the Court, there was no reason to believe any drugs possessed by the 13-year-old presented a danger to anyone or to believe that they were concealed in her undergarments.

The Supreme Court didn’t say that a strip search could never be done, just that it would be difficult to justify. Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their undergarments. To overcome that expectation, you better have a grave reason for the search. One thing’s for sure. If you conduct a strip search, you’ll be sued — and chances are you’ll lose.