Tribune Staff

Ohio's highest court sewed a rather sizable loophole on Wednesday by a narrow, 4-3 decision. If it was a simple tax loophole or one covering some obscure act, the court's gaffe might have been excusable. But this loophole puts many workers at risk, all in the sake of protecting personal privacy rights.

The court, or at least the majority of the justices, ruled a law requiring injured workers to prove they were not under the influence at the time of their injury is unconstitutional.

The law had put the burden of proof in such cases on the injured employee. Specifically, the law mandated that a refusal to submit to a drug and alcohol test was tantamount to guilt.

The rule was simple: If an injured person refused to take a drug and alcohol test, the refusal was considered as a positive test result and could be used as evidence to deny the worker a worker's compensation claim.

Now that burden is placed back on the employer and without the ability to forcibly test injured parties, the deterrent aspect of a drug and alcohol test is all but lost.

It is a bit like asking state police to ticket drivers without radar and with no speedometer in their cruisers. It may be possible, but the act doesn't have much teeth.

While we certainly understand and hold dear the rights of personal privacy, some of those rights are voluntarily given up when that person steps into a public workplace. When the well-being of others is at stake, we think giving up some privacy is more than worth the hassle.

We only wish the Supreme Court could see that huge loophole hanging over the heads of Ohio's business community.