14 Cal.4th 846 (1997)

LORRAINE LODER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF GLENDALE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. S043548.

Supreme Court of California.

January 6, 1997.

*851 COUNSEL

Mark Rosenbaum, Paul Hoffman, Gary Williams, Krakow & Kaplan, Marvin E. Krakow, Steven J. Kaplan and Eliza Vorenberg for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Scott H. Howard, City Attorney, Ron R. Braden, Assistant City Attorney, Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black, Gerald Marer, Goldstein, Kennedy & Petito and Charles H. Goldstein for Defendants and Appellants.

De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Stephen R. Morris, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Cristina L. Sierra, Acting City Attorney (Pasadena), Lawrence S. Newberry, Assistant City Attorney, N. Gregroy Taylor, Karen L. Tachiki, Henry Torres, Jr., Elise S. Rose, Dorothy Bacskai Egel, K. William Curtis, Kenneth R. Hulse, Roy J. Chastain, Linda M. Nelson, Charles D. Sakai, Daniel J. Popeo, David A. Price, Sweeney, Mason & Wilson, Roger Mason, Swidler & Berlin, Robert V. Zener, *852 Kathryn R. Taylor, Morgan, Lweis & Bockius, Raymond R. Kepner, Richard C. Rybicki, Littler, Mendelsohn, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, Mark A. de Bernardo, Peter A. Susser, Paula Champagne, Richard N. Hill, Schachter, Kristoff, Orenstein & Berkowitz, Victor Schachter and Sharon S. Zezima as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

OPINION

GEORGE, C.J.

In this case we address a challenge to an employment-related drug testing program adopted by the City of Glendale in 1986. Under the program in question, all individuals who conditionally have been offered new positions with the city (both newly hired persons and current city employees who have been approved for promotion to a new position) are required to undergo urinalysis testing for a variety of illegal drugs and alcohol as part of a preplacement medical examination that the city traditionally has conducted prior to hiring or promotion. The drug testing requirement applies to all of the city's employment positions, and is imposed without regard to whether the city has any basis for suspecting that a particular applicant for employment or promotion currently is abusing drugs or alcohol.

The trial court concluded that the city could not lawfully impose a drug testing requirement for all city positions in either the preemployment or prepromotion context, and then undertook the substantial task of reviewing detailed job descriptions of 80 job categories (many of which included a number of separate job classifications) and, with regard to each category and classification, balancing the intrusion upon reasonable expectations of privacy against the governmental interests served by drug testing. The trial court ultimately determined that the challenged drug testing program was invalid as to classifications falling within 36 of the designated categories, and valid as to the remaining positions. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the city could not require drug testing for all city positions, in either the preemployment or the prepromotion setting, but concluded that the trial court improperly had approved drug testing for a significantly larger group of employment positions than was constitutionally permissible.

We granted review to determine the validity of the city's drug testing program under the statutory and constitutional provisions relied upon by plaintiff. As we shall explain, we conclude that the across-the-board drug testing program here at issue is invalid as applied to current employees who *853 have been conditionally approved for promotion, but is valid as applied to job applicants.^[1]

I

A

From 1983 to 1985, the city's personnel department observed an increase in the number of city employee disciplinary cases in which substance abuse appeared to be a significant factor, as well as an increase in the number of city employees who voluntarily referred themselves for treatment for substance abuse. In response, the city instituted a two-month pilot project (beginning in November 1985) under which drug testing was conducted on all applicants for city employment. Of the 48 applicants who were tested during the pilot project, 10 (approximately 21 percent) tested positive for drugs. Thereafter, in mid-1986, the city's civil service commission adopted the drug and alcohol screening program that is challenged in this case.

For at least 10 years prior to the 1986 adoption of the program, the city had required every applicant who had been conditionally approved for hiring or promotion to undergo a preplacement medical examination paid for by the city and conducted at the medical offices of a city-designated physician. As part of the preplacement medical examination, applicants were required to provide a urine sample for analysis for various medical conditions. In adopting the drug and alcohol testing program here at issue, the civil service commission approved the addition of a drug and alcohol screening component to this preexisting preplacement medical examination process.

The record discloses that the medical examination and drug and alcohol screening process operates in the following manner.^[2] Applicants for employment or promotion are notified in the city's employment bulletin (which announces job openings) that, as part of the selection process, a medical examination, including drug and alcohol screening, is required of all applicants. After an applicant has completed the initial, substantive portion of the application process (consisting, typically, of written and/or oral examinations, performance tests, background and reference checks, etc.), and has been selected by the city for employment or promotion, the applicant is notified that his or her hiring or promotion is conditioned upon successful *854 completion of a preplacement medical examination that includes a drug and alcohol screening component. The personnel department refers all successful applicants to Dr. Robert Newhouse, a Glendale physician, for medical examination and drug testing. The record indicates that Dr. Newhouse had conducted preplacement medical examinations for the city for 10 years prior to its adoption of the drug testing program.

The medical examination and drug and alcohol screening are conducted at Dr. Newhouse's medical offices. When an applicant arrives at the offices, he or she is asked by a medical employee to sign a written form, consenting to a medical examination and to drug and alcohol testing, and authorizing the release of the test results to the city. The form also asks the applicant to list all medications and drugs that he or she currently is taking, and informs the applicant that a positive result on the drug or alcohol screening test, absent a valid legal explanation for the presence of such drug or alcohol, will result in disqualification from the hiring or promotion process. Applicants who refuse to sign the consent form or to undergo the screening process are considered medically disqualified for employment or promotion, and are advised that the disqualification will remain in effect for the applicant's entire period of eligibility for the position in question.^[3]

After the consent form has been completed and signed, the testing process begins. At the time the city added the drug testing component, it instituted a number of measures designed to prevent fraud or adulteration in the drug testing procedure. First, the applicant is provided a hospital gown to wear and is asked to undress down to his or her underwear. A medical employee then furnishes the applicant an empty, sealed, sterile container, and the seal is broken in the presence of the applicant. Thereafter, a medical employee accompanies the applicant to a restroom and stands in a cubicle next to the applicant's cubicle while the applicant provides a urine sample; the medical employee does not visually observe the urination process. As additional safeguards against potential fraud, blue colored water is used in the toilet bowl to prevent adulteration of the urine sample, and the medical employee checks the temperature of the sample that the applicant has provided. If the urine sample is cold, the applicant is requested to provide another sample.

After the applicant has given the urine sample to the medical employee, the sample is tested (in the applicant's presence), using a "dipstick," to *855 determine the presence of blood, sugar, or protein in the urine, as a screen for medical problems. Thereafter, the container is closed and sealed with evidence tape, and the applicant and medical employee both sign a "chain of custody" slip that is placed in a laboratory envelope along with the sample. The applicant subsequently undergoes the remainder of the medical examination, which generally consists of at least the taking of a complete medical history from the applicant, a general physical examination, audiometric testing, and tuberculosis skin testing.^[4]

Thereafter, the laboratory envelope containing the applicant's urine sample is sent to an independent, certified testing laboratory, which examines the sealed sample for signs of tampering and assigns a serial number to the sample to avoid identifying the applicant by name. While the sample is at the laboratory, a positive chain of custody is kept at all times, and the laboratory is secured by magnetically controlled doors.

At the laboratory, the urine sample is tested for the following substances: (1) amphetamines and methamphetamines (including "speed" and "crystal"), (2) benzodiazepines (including Valium, Librium, Oxazepam, Serex, Dalmane), (3) barbiturates (including Amobarbital, Butabarbital, Pentobarbital, Phenobarbital, Secobarbital), (4) cocaine, (5) methadone, (6) methaqualone (i.e., Quaalude), (7) opiates (including codeine, heroin, morphine, hydromorphone, hydrocodone), (8) phencyclidine (PCP), (9) "THC" (marijuana), and (10) alcohol. The sample initially is tested by an enzyme immunoassay (EMIT) test. If that test discloses a positive finding, the sample is tested by a gas chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (GCMS) test. If the second test is negative, the overall test result is considered negative and reported as such by the laboratory. Any sample that has tested positive is retained by the laboratory for 12 months, to permit retesting in connection with any administrative appeal the applicant may file.

The results of the laboratory testing are set forth in a written report to Dr. Newhouse. Dr. Newhouse reviews the results in conjunction with the consent form that the applicant has completed (on which the applicant has disclosed the medications that he or she currently is taking), determines whether the test has revealed the presence of drugs for which the applicant *856 has no legitimate medical explanation, and reports his conclusion to the director of personnel. All test results, like all other medical records, are treated as confidential and kept in a confidential medical file. The director of personnel testified that the information is not disclosed to any law enforcement agency.

If the test reveals the presence of drugs for which the applicant has no legitimate medical explanation, the applicant is disqualified from hiring or promotion, and remains ineligible for the period during which the "eligibility list" for the job in question is in force. A disqualified promotional applicant, currently employed by the city in another position, is referred to a mandatory assistance program that includes group counseling and a wide variety of educational programs.

Applicants for hiring or promotion who are disqualified as a result of the drug testing program may appeal to the city's civil service commission, pursuant to procedures governing an applicant's disqualification for other medical conditions. If the applicant or the civil service commission requests retesting of the sample in connection with such an administrative appeal, and the applicant agrees that the results of the retesting may be released to the city's personnel division, the retesting, by gas chromatography, is performed at a laboratory selected by the applicant from a list of three laboratories designated by the city. If the results of the second drug screen are negative, Dr. Newhouse reviews the results and recommends either qualifying or disqualifying the applicant; if the results are positive, the initial disqualification remains in effect. If the applicant continues to contest a disqualification, the civil service commission may reject the appeal or direct that a third drug screen be conducted on the initial sample by another laboratory. If the third test is negative, Dr. Newhouse reviews the results and makes a recommendation to the civil service commission, which may find the applicant either eligible or disqualified.

B

Shortly after the city's adoption of the drug testing program, plaintiff Lorraine Loder, a taxpayer, instituted the present taxpayer's suit to enjoin further expenditure of public funds relating to the drug testing program. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 526a.) The complaint alleged that the drug testing program violated the provisions of a California statute, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.), and also violated the provisions of the federal and state Constitutions guaranteeing the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right of privacy. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)

*857 After considering briefs submitted by the parties with regard to the appropriate constitutional analysis to be applied in this context, the trial court concluded that it was "mandated by applicable law, as handed down by the United States Supreme Court and other sources, to engage in a constitutional analysis as to each category of positions placed in issue by the parties." In light of this conclusion, the court directed the parties to prepare a joint statement describing each of the numerous job categories to which the drug testing program applied, including a discussion of factors affecting an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy and the particular governmental interests supporting such testing. The resulting joint statement was approximately 500 pages in length.

In addition to submitting the joint statement, the parties introduced testimony from city officials and expert witnesses concerning the background and purpose of the drug testing program, the harmful effects of drug use in the employment context, and alternative methods — other than urinalysis testing — that may be available for detecting and dealing with the drug use problem in the employment context.

After considering the material presented by the parties and the numerous federal and state decisions evaluating drug testing programs, the trial court, in a 250-page opinion, concluded that the Glendale drug testing program was valid as to numerous job classifications but invalid as to others. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court initially considered the constitutional validity of the drug testing program under the federal and state Constitutions, looking to prior federal and state cases that had identified a variety of factors that could justify drug testing for particular job classifications in the absence of individualized suspicion — for example, whether the position was closely involved with public safety, related to drug interdiction, or involved access to highly sensitive or classified information — as well as other factors that could affect the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons employed in particular positions. After balancing the governmental interests supporting drug testing against the employees' reasonable expectations of privacy with regard to each job classification, the trial court ultimately concluded that the city's drug testing program was invalid, in both the preemployment and prepromotion contexts, as to specified positions in 36 of the 80 job categories to which the policy applied, but valid as to the remaining positions. Thus, for example, the trial court found the drug testing program constitutionally invalid as applied to city attorneys and their secretaries, library and city clerk personnel, clerks and stenographers, meter readers, and finance and administrative services personnel, but valid as applied to police, fire, and jail personnel, waste management and sanitation workers, health service personnel, mechanics and repair workers, and power and water department personnel.

*858 With regard to plaintiff's statutory argument, the trial court concluded that the drug testing program did not violate the provisions of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.).

The trial court issued an injunction prohibiting the city from applying the challenged drug testing program to those job categories as to which it had found the testing constitutionally impermissible. At the same time, the trial court expressly stated that the injunction applied only to the drug testing aspects of the city's examination process and that the city was "not prohibited from conducting the remainder of the existing physical examinations as to [such job categories], including the taking of urine samples from the applicants or employees for purposes other than the detection of illegal drug use, including for ascertainment of medical condition and physical fitness."

C

Both parties appealed from the judgment of the trial court. The city contended that the trial court should have found the drug testing program permissible with regard to all job classifications, while plaintiff contended that the trial court's injunction was too limited and should have applied to additional job classifications.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that a drug testing program that applied to all employment positions is impermissible in both the preemployment and the prepromotional contexts, but the appellate court concluded that, in balancing the privacy interests of employees against the governmental interests served by drug testing, the trial court improperly had upheld the validity of the drug testing program with regard to many job classifications as to which the city had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently compelling justification. As the Court of Appeal interpreted the governing federal and state constitutional decisions, the city's suspicionless drug testing program was valid "only as to positions in which the regular duties involve some special and obvious physical or ethical demand, and the compromise of the employee's ability to meet such demands could have an immediate disastrous consequence upon public safety or security" (italics added). The Court of Appeal then determined that the trial court had approved drug testing with respect to many job classifications that did not pose safety or security concerns of this magnitude.

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that even with regard to those employment positions that satisfied its stringent standard, drug testing may be required only "(1) upon initial employment in the job category, whether by hire or promotion; and (2) after a job offer has been made; and (3) if the test *859 is conducted in a manner which does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, i.e., without requiring disclosure of any medical history information (including drugs which the applicant is taking upon advice and/or prescription of a medical doctor) which is not relevant to the applicant's ability to perform the job; and (4) if the sample is collected in a manner which does not intrude unnecessarily upon the right to personal privacy; and (5) if an initial positive test is confirmed by a second test regarded as reliable by the relevant scientific community." (Fns. omitted.)

The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the judgment that permitted drug testing "as to specified [job] categories where inconsistent with the views expressed" in the Court of Appeal opinion, and remanded the matter to the trial court "for the sole purpose of further limiting those job titles as to which preemployment and promotional drug testing may be conducted."

The city sought review of the Court of Appeal's decision, challenging both the constitutional standard embraced by the Court of Appeal and that court's application of the standard to the numerous job classifications at issue in this case. We granted review to consider the validity of the city's drug testing program under the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions.

II

As noted at the outset, plaintiff's challenge to the city's drug testing program here at issue rests on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Pursuant to traditional principles of judicial restraint, we turn first to plaintiff's statutory claim because, were that claim meritorious, there would be no need to reach plaintiff's constitutional contentions. (See Ashwander v. Valley Authority (1936) 297 U.S. 288, 347 [80 L.Ed. 688, 711, 56 S.Ct. 466] (conc. opn. by Brandeis, J.).)

(1a) Plaintiff contends that the city's drug testing program violates a provision of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) In general, this legislation, enacted in 1981, is intended to protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information obtained from a patient by a health care provider, while at the same time setting forth limited circumstances in which the release of such information to specified entities or individuals is permissible. (See, e.g., Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30 [32 Cal. Rptr.2d 200, 876 P.2d 999].) To provide such protection, the act specifies that "[n]o provider of health care shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authorization..." (Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (a)), and *860 then sets forth, in some detail, the requirements of a valid authorization for the release of medical information "by a provider of health care" (id., § 56.11) or by an employer (id., § 56.21).

The record in the present case indicates that the city treats the results of the drug testing program with the same degree of confidentiality as all other confidential medical information obtained as a result of its medical examination of job applicants and employees, retaining the information in confidential medical files and disclosing the results of the testing only to the city personnel director. Plaintiff does not contend that the manner in which the city handles or maintains drug test results violates the provisions of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act relating to an employer's duty to protect against the unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential medical information. (Civ. Code, § 56.20, subds. (a), (c).)^[5]

Instead, plaintiff contends that the drug testing program violates the act insofar as the program automatically disqualifies from employment or promotion any employee who refuses to sign a form (tendered to an applicant prior to testing), authorizing the physician who conducts the drug testing to inform the city of the results of the testing. Plaintiff relies, in this regard, upon Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b), which provides in full: "No employee shall be discriminated against in terms or conditions of employment due to that employee's refusal to sign an authorization under this part. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from taking such action as is necessary in the absence of medical information due to an employee's refusal to sign an authorization under this part." (Italics added.)

Plaintiff contends that by disqualifying applicants who refuse to authorize disclosure to the city of the results of city-mandated drug testing, the program impermissibly "discriminates" against applicants who "refus[e] to sign an authorization," in violation of Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b), and that the city has failed to establish that its disqualification of such applicants from employment or promotion is "necessary" within the meaning of this subdivision. Plaintiff contends, in this regard, that the reference in *861 section 56.20, subdivision (b), to "necessary" "should be defined to require an employer to have a compelling reason to act in the absence of information and should further require that the employer had no reasonable, less intrusive alternative."

In our view, plaintiff's proposed interpretation of Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b), is untenable. An employer "discriminates" against an employee in violation of section 56.20, subdivision (b), if it improperly retaliates against or penalizes an employee for refusing to authorize the employee's health care provider to disclose confidential medical information to the employer or others (see Civ. Code, § 56.11), or for refusing to authorize the employer to disclose confidential medical information relating to the employee to a third party (see Civ. Code, § 56.21). By contrast, an employer who disqualifies an employee or job applicant for refusing to permit the employer to be informed of the ultimate results of an employer-mandated medical examination or drug test, like an employer who disqualifies an employee or applicant who fails or refuses to take the required examination or test, has not "discriminated" against the employee or applicant for refusing to sign an authorization of disclosure, but instead simply has taken "such action as is necessary in the absence of medical information due to [the] employee's refusal ...," as specifically authorized by section 56.20, subdivision (b). This follows because an employer-mandated medical examination or drug testing procedure obviously would be totally ineffective if an employer could not treat an individual who refuses to permit the employer to learn the ultimate results of the examination in the same fashion as an individual who refuses to complete the test.^[6]

Although plaintiff maintains that the language in Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b), permitting an employer to take "such action as is necessary in the absence of medical information due to an employee's refusal to sign an authorization" (italics added) should be interpreted to require an employer to justify any employer-mandated medical examination or drug test under a demanding "compelling interest" standard, plaintiff has not cited, and our independent research has not identified, anything in either *862 the language or legislative history of section 56.20, subdivision (b), that indicates the Legislature, in enacting this provision, intended to impose any such stringent requirement on employer-mandated medical examinations or drug testing. Indeed, although section 56.20, subdivisions (a) and (c) (quoted in fn. 5, ante), reasonably can be interpreted as imposing restrictions upon an employer's handling and disclosure of information about an applicant obtained through an employer-mandated medical examination or drug test, there is nothing in the language or legislative history of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act to suggest that the Legislature, in drafting this enactment, ever considered the entirely distinct question of whether, and under what circumstances, an employer may require a job applicant or current employee to submit to an employer-administered medical examination or drug test as a condition of employment. In the absence of any indication that the Legislature, in enacting this legislation, intended to address the validity of employer-mandated medical examinations or drug tests, we do not believe that section 56.20, subdivision (b), can or should be interpreted as having resolved this significant issue by implication. Accordingly, we conclude that so long as an employer-mandated medical examination or drug testing program is otherwise lawful, section 56.20, subdivision (b), does not prohibit an employer from disqualifying an applicant or employee who refuses to authorize disclosure to the employer of the ultimate results of the examination or test.

Our conclusion that Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b), cannot reasonably be interpreted to regulate the circumstances under which an employer may require job applicants or current employees to submit to a medical examination or drug test is bolstered by the circumstance that, in contrast to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, other statutory provisions exist, both at the federal and state level, that speak directly to the question of the validity of employer-mandated medical examinations and drug testing.

At the federal level, the most pertinent statute is the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) (ADA), enacted in 1990. The ADA contains a number of explicit provisions related to employer-required medical examinations, establishing different rules applicable to various stages of the application and employment process. In the initial stage of the application process, prior to the time an employer has made an offer of employment to a job applicant, the ADA prohibits any employer covered by the act from conducting a medical examination of any applicant. (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)(A).) After an employer has made an offer of employment to a job applicant and before the applicant begins his or her employment duties, however, the ADA specifically provides that an employer may require a job *863 applicant to undergo a medical examination, and may condition its offer of employment on the results of such examination, so long as (1) all entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability, (2) information obtained through the examination regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, and (3) the results of the examination are used only in accordance with the other provisions of the ADA (i.e., the results may not be used to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability). (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3).) The administrative regulation implementing this section of the act further explains that, at this stage, "[m]edical examinations conducted in accordance with this section do not have to be job-related and consistent with business necessity." (29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(b)(3) (1996).) Finally, after an employee has been hired and has begun working, the ADA provides that an employer "shall not require a medical examination ... unless such examination ... is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity." (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).)^[7]

*864 (2) Thus, the ADA establishes a rather detailed scheme regulating employer-required medical examinations, prohibiting such examinations at some stages of the application and employment process, but specifically permitting an employer, at the post-offer/pre-hiring stage, to require such medical examinations of all applicants without any showing that the examination "is ... job-related and consistent with business necessity." (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).)

Furthermore, although the ADA places some significant limitations upon the circumstances under which an employer may require current employees or applicants for employment to undergo medical examinations, the act contains a specific provision declaring that "[f]or purposes of this subchapter, a test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination" (42 U.S.C. § 12114(d)). The legislative history of the ADA and the administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to the act also make clear that the ADA was not intended to restrict an employer's use of drug testing to determine whether an applicant for employment or a current employee is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.^[8]

*865 At the state level, the question of employer-required medical examinations is addressed explicitly in an administrative regulation that was adopted to implement a provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of physical or mental disability. (See Gov. Code, §§ 12935, subd. (a), 12940.) Under the regulation, an employer may condition an offer of employment upon the results of a medical examination conducted before the employee begins work so long as (1) all entering employees in similar positions are subjected to such an examination, (2) the applicant or employee is permitted to "submit independent medical opinions for consideration" before the applicant is disqualified based upon the results of the examination, and (3) the results of the examination are maintained on separate forms and are treated as confidential medical records. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7294.0, subd. (d).) Moreover, like the ADA, the FEHA specifically provides that "the unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs shall not be deemed, in and of itself, to constitute a mental [or physical] disability" for purposes of the provisions of the act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability (Gov. Code, § 12926, subds. (i), (k)), and nothing in the FEHA, or any other California statute, purports to prohibit, or place general limitations upon, employer-mandated drug testing.^[9]

Of course, the Legislature remains free to impose greater restrictions upon employer-mandated medical examinations or drug testing than those embodied in the current provisions of the ADA or the FEHA. (1b) Contrary to plaintiff's contention, however, we believe it is clear that the Legislature did not intend to impose such restrictions when it enacted the applicable provisions of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in 1981. Accordingly, we reject plaintiff's contention that the city's drug testing program — by disqualifying applicants who refuse to authorize the release of drug test results to the city — improperly "discriminates" against such applicants in violation of Civil Code section 56.20, subdivision (b).

Having found that plaintiff's sole statutory challenge to the city's drug testing program is without merit, we turn to plaintiff's constitutional contentions.

*866 III

Plaintiff maintains that the city's drug testing program violates the provisions of both the United States and California Constitutions. Because the United States Supreme Court already has spoken directly to the issue of the proper application of federal constitutional principles in evaluating the validity of drug testing in the public employment context, whereas our court has not previously had occasion to address the issue of employment-related drug testing under the state Constitution, we believe it is advisable and appropriate to consider plaintiff's federal constitutional claim before addressing her contention under the state Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court addressed the validity of employer-required drug testing in two cases decided in 1989: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (1989) 489 U.S. 602 [103 L.Ed.2d 639, 109 S.Ct. 1402] (Skinner) and Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (1989) 489 U.S. 656 [103 L.Ed.2d 685, 109 S.Ct. 1384] (Von Raab). In view of the significance of the Skinner and Von Raab cases, we review these decisions in some detail.

A

In Skinner, supra, 489 U.S. 602, the court examined the validity, under the Fourth Amendment, of drug testing conducted by a private railroad pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The regulations, imposed because the FRA had found that alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees poses a serious threat to safety, required the railroad to administer blood and urine tests to employees who were working on trains that were involved in certain relatively serious accidents. The regulations required the railroad, immediately after the occurrence of such an accident, to transport all crew members or other covered employees directly involved in the accident to an independent medical facility, where both blood and urine samples were to be obtained from each employee. (Although primary reliance was placed upon blood samples, urine samples also were required, because drug traces remain in a person's urine longer than in the blood, and in some cases it would not be possible to transport a worker to a medical facility before certain drugs might be eliminated from the worker's bloodstream.)

In analyzing the validity of the mandated blood and urine tests, the court in Skinner first determined that, because the railroad carried out the testing under the aegis of the federal regulations, there was sufficient governmental "encouragement, endorsement, and participation ... to implicate the Fourth Amendment." (489 U.S. at pp. 615-616 [103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 658-659].)

*867 The court in Skinner thereafter considered whether the blood and urine tests called for by the regulation constituted "searches or seizures" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The court first noted that it had "long recognized that a `compelled intrusio[n] into the body for blood to be analyzed for alcohol content' must be deemed a Fourth Amendment search," explaining that both the physical intrusion, penetrating the skin, and the "ensuing chemical analysis of the sample" constitute invasions of the tested individual's privacy interests. (489 U.S. at p. 616 [103 L.Ed.2d at p. 659].) Turning to urine testing, and observing that, unlike blood testing, "the procedures ... for collecting and testing urine samples do not entail a surgical intrusion into the body," the court nonetheless concluded that the administration of a urine test also constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at p. 617.) The court explained: "It is not disputed ... that chemical analysis of urine, like that of blood, can reveal a host of private medical facts about an employee, including whether he or she is epileptic, pregnant, or diabetic. Nor can it be disputed that the process of collecting the sample to be tested, which may in some cases involve visual or aural monitoring of the act of urination, itself implicates privacy interests.... `There are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine. Most people describe it by euphemisms if they talk about it at all. It is a function traditionally performed without public observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well as social custom.' [Citation.] Because it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable, the Federal Courts of Appeal have concluded unanimously, and we agree, that these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment." (489 U.S. at p. 617 [103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 659-660], italics added.)

Having found that the Fourth Amendment applied to the challenged blood and urine testing, the court in Skinner, emphasizing that this constitutional provision does not proscribe all searches and seizures but only those that are "unreasonable," proceeded to determine whether the searches mandated by the regulation were reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The court observed: "What is reasonable, of course, `depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself.' [Citation.] ... [T]he permissibility of a particular practice `is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.' [Citations.]" (489 U.S. at p. 619 [103 L.Ed.2d at p. 661], italics added.) Although acknowledging that in most criminal cases this balance is struck in favor of the procedure described by the warrant clause (viewing a search as reasonable if conducted pursuant to a warrant that has been issued by a neutral *868 magistrate upon a showing of probable cause), the court in Skinner noted that past Supreme Court decisions had recognized exceptions to this rule "`when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable."' [Citations.] When faced with such special needs, we have not hesitated to balance the governmental and privacy interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable-cause requirements in the particular context. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 619-624 [103 L.Ed.2d at p. 661].)

Examining the specific context presented in Skinner, the court found that "[t]he Government's interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety, like its supervision of probationers or regulated industries, or its operation of a government office, school, or prison, `likewise presents "special needs" beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements.'" (489 U.S. at p. 620[103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 661-662].) After concluding that imposition of a warrant requirement in this context "would add little to the assurances of certainty and regularity already afforded by the regulations, while significantly hindering, and in many cases frustrating, the objectives of the Government's testing program" (id. at p. 624 [103 L.Ed.2d at p. 664]), the court turned to the more difficult question whether the testing program was impermissible because it subjected employees to blood and urine testing in the absence not only of a showing of probable cause to believe that an employee had used illicit drugs or alcohol, but also in the absence of a showing of even an individualized suspicion of recent drug or alcohol use. Although the court in Skinner noted that "[w]hen the balance of interests precludes insistence on a showing of probable cause, we have usually required `some quantum of individualized suspicion' before concluding that a search is reasonable [citation]," (ibid.) it further explained that past cases also had indicated "that a showing of individualized suspicion is not a constitutional floor, below which a search must be presumed unreasonable," and that "[i]n limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion." (Ibid., italics added.)

The court then went on to conclude that, under the circumstances presented in Skinner, the governmental interest in testing without a showing of individualized suspicion outweighed the intrusion on privacy posed by the tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized the compelling nature of the governmental interest supporting the testing at issue in