What's the difference between "subject to" and "subjected to" in contracts? [duplicate]
I read an article from Toronto Star today which stated:
TTC workers are subject to alcohol and drug testing.
A later paragraph of the same article repeated it, except it used subjected to instead of subject to.
I have rarely seen the use of subjected to before. Is it legitimate in English as well? Why didn’t the author just keep it consistent by using subject to throughout the article? Does using varieties of forms enrich the expressions within an article?
I've always understood them to have somewhat different meaning.
[...] employees are subject to testing [...]
Means that at any time they could be required to be tested.
On the other hand,
[...] employees are subjected to testing [...]
would mean the employees are actually put through the testing.
Quick summary:
Subject to = might happen
Subjected to = did or will happen
Generally, subject to (subject in this case is an adjective) is most commonly used in the following ways:
-
having a tendency for something
This road is subject to flooding.
-
conditional upon
Your business plan is subject to review.
The promotion is subject to our terms and conditions.
Subjected to is used to mean "to be made to undergo an unpleasant experience":
Sadly, immigrants are subjected to verbal and emotional abuse in many parts of the country.
Triathletes are subjected to extreme physical demands.
Emperor Penguins are subjected to the severe cold of Antarctic winters.
Reference: http://tumblr.com/Z90tLy4KDe8D
- 'subjected to' means that an act was actually performed.
- 'subject to' means that the legal situation allows the act to be performed on them.
So it could be that the article is pointing out that it is allowed for the test to occur, and then later the test actually took place.