No Peace for the Pee-shy

By LeeBrimelow, Flickr Creative Commons

You’ve all seen it, if it’s not  in your employee handbook, it’s on a poster or placard or somewhere else in your office or place of work: “We reserve the right to require you submit to a drug-test at our discretion. Refusal will result in immediate termination.”  If it doesn’t say that, than it says something similar. It’s pretty boiler-plate HR language, especially if you didn’t have to pee in a cup to get the job in the first place.

Well, apparently this North Branford public works employee didn’t get the memo. (Or, maybe he did get the memo, but he was really concentrating on peeing at the time) reports:

“Daniel Pond, who worked for the town from 2002 until he was fired in 2009, filed the suit this month in New Haven Superior Court.

According to reports, Pond’s suit says he was asked to take a drug test in February 2008. The suit says he asked for a blood test instead of a urine test because of a medical condition, but was refused. Daniel Pond, who worked for the town from 2002 until he was fired in 2009, filed the suit this month in New Haven Superior Court.”

Now, I’m no doctor but I didn’t realize being “pee-shy” was a diagnosed  medical condition. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, this dude did have some sort of pee-condition and had a catheter or something… then there would certainly be a way for him to produce urine to be tested. I mean, you have to pee eventually…it’s the law, according to your kidneys.  Something doesn’t smell right with this case.

On the flip side, if the dude was willing to offer up blood in place of urine, I’m thinking he has nothing to hide. Personally, I’m a lot more willing to stand and pee in front of an auditorium full of people than I am to have someone stab me in the arm with a needle and drain blood from me.

Regardless, best of luck with your court case sir. I’m sure trial will be riveting.  In the mean time, I’m off to the doctor to see if I can get “not getting to work on-time” diagnosed as a medical condition.



  1. I’ve had to utox people with shy bladders. It’s not fun. People get anxious and can’t pee in front of others. You sit there in the bathroom with them for a long time making supportive comments, wishing they would get it over with already. Real anxiety issue. I’ve had people who don’t even use drugs have this happen. Negative utox, trouble peeing. But…they should have just ponied up a little more money and given this guy the mouth swab or done the hair test if he couldn’t pee.


  2. You write: “I mean, you have to pee eventually…it’s the law, according to your kidneys”.

    No, it is a myth that if you have to go badly enough, you will eventually go.

    Those of us – men and women – who suffer from shy bladder syndrome (paruresis)feel intense anxiety when we have to urinate in the presence of other people. Short of catheterization, a process by which a tube is inserted into the urethra for the purpose of releasing urine, there is no other fullproof way of emptying our bladders. What we want are alternative testing methods such as saliva, hair or blood testing – that we are willing to pay for ourselves – legitimized by public and private employers.


  3. Carol is right. While not widely known, shy bladder or Paruresis (the official term) affects millions of people worldwide. It’s likely not widely known because it’s not widely talked about by those affected by this anxiety disorder.

    I think Mr. Pond had a legitimate case here if his attorneys site discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer had other testing options but refused to use them.

    I came across this article that explains things a little better:


Comments are closed.