Employers' increasing reliance on urinalysis tests to screen for drug use raises significant legal issues to the unreliability and invalidity of the most commonly used test types: enzyme multiplied immunoassay (EMIT), radioimmunoassay (RIA), and gas chromatography (GC). Only the more costly mass spectrometer (MS) test can accurately identify drug ingestion. However, none of the tests can measure intoxication, predict impairment of job performance, or detect the time of ingestion. The unavoidable result of employer reliance on inaccurate urinalysis tests is discipline and discharge of some innocent employees. Employees faced with mandatory urinalysis tests have few protections, especially before the tests are administered. Court challenges have met with little success, however. The most efficient solution to the growing problems arising from urinalysis testing is legal uniformity through national legislation. The law should limit the manner of testing and the use of test results to protect employees' rights. Employers should have a company policy and should educate their employees about it. A positive MS test should be required to confirm other tests. Employees who admit drug abuse should be given the option of outside counseling or an inhouse employee assistance program. Employees who decline these options or deny drug use should be informed that a second positive urinalysis will result in discipline or discharge. Additional recommendations, discussion of similarities between drug testing and polygraph testing, examples of court decisions, and 248 footnotes.