Employers, acting to increase productivity and workplace and public safety, have instituted urinalysis to test for employee drug use, heedless of the consequences for employee privacy and autonomy. When an employer acts on behalf of the state or is an agent of the state, that employer must abide by constitutional limitations on state action. The courts have ruled that in such a case, urinalysis testing must be predicated on an objective, observable manifestation of the employee's on-the-job impairment; i.e., tests can be used only to confirm a reasonable belief that the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol at a time when such impairment presents a clear and present danger to himself or others. This judicially derived rule minimizes the invasiveness of the testing while retaining its deterrent value. Employees of private entities, however, do not come under this rule, and job applicants for public employment do not enjoy the same degree of protection accorded those already employed. Also, there are few assurances that employers who test in accordance with the rule will not abuse the testing process to obtain information unrelated to safety concerns. Legislation must address these issues. 160 footnotes.