Imagine this: you've worked for a major company for the past three years, when you're asked to provide a random urine sample for routine drug screening. You're given three hours to produce a testable plastic cup of urine, but because you suffer from paruresis, or "shy bladder," despite the fact you've consumed over a quart of water to help the process along, you're unable to deliver the goods within the allotted time frame.

You'd probably expect your employer to let you try again, or at least give you a bit more time to...ahem...drain the lizard. The last thing you'd expect is to get fired. That's what Tom Smith, a Georgia employee of Caterpillar Corporation, says happened to him last December.

From OnlineAthens [GA]: Smith says he suffers from paruresis, more commonly known as shy bladder syndrome, and he should be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was dismissed Dec. 5, 2003, by Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment.

"This is supposed to be a country where losing a job for a disorder like that shouldn't be a problem," said Smith, a 55-year-old assembly line worker who worked at the plant more than three years. "It's just a matter of simple justice."

Smith's lawsuit alleges he was pulled aside for a drug test and given three hours to urinate in a plastic urine specimen cup. Despite having drunk 40 ounces of water, Smith could not relieve himself under pressure.

He later paid $110 for an independent hair drug test, which he passed, but Caterpillar required he pass the urine test. Hair tests are generally considered to be more accurate than urine tests and detect drug use over a few months rather than a few weeks.

If that is truly all that's at stake - that Smith didn't urinate on cue - I can't see how Caterpillar has much of a case. While the suit's contention is that paruresis should be considered a disability, and therefore Smith should be reinstated, I think the real issue at hand is that a company should not be able to fire an employee for violating "drug-free workplace" regulations if he or she has not actually tested positive for drug use. It's the stereotypical "guilty until proven innocent" charge.

It would have been in the company's probative best interest to actually wait for the sample (which he eventually produced, but after the arbitrary three-hour limit) and have valid proof of drug use. No doubt the reason the company has a three-hour limit for urine samples is to prevent the "test-ee" from trying to dilute their urine, and to ensure that substances like alcohol aren't metabolized over time. However, the fact that Smith afterwards passed a drug test with a longer "testing window" doesn't help their case.

Caterpillar's policy should have allowed the more accurate blood or hair tests (which are in fact less susceptible to errors or adulteration) as an alternative to the urine test. By dismissing Smith solely for not producing a testable urine sample within a specific time frame, Caterpillar has no real evidence "in hand" that he used drugs, and are leaving themselves wide open to a wrongful termination lawsuit. They literally "pissed away" their case.

---