Finally, A Sensible Ruling On Drug Testing
If your work vehicle is a rolling cart of books, do we really need to urine-test you? Bob Egelko writes for the SF Chron of the Ninth Circuit's ruling against the city of Woodburn, Oregon, which argued that it was allowed to maintain a drug-free workplace by making prospective employees be screened for drugs and alcohol:
The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test. A federal judge ruled the policy unconstitutional and awarded Lanier $12,400 in damages and $44,000 in legal fees, her lawyer said.The appeals court said Thursday that the judge's ruling went too far, because the city may be able to justify drug-testing of applicants for some jobs. But the court found no basis to test applicants for library positions.
Federal courts have upheld mandatory drug screening for jobs in which performance "may pose a great danger to the public," the appeals judges said. They cited Supreme Court rulings allowing drug testing of railroad crews after accidents and of customs agents who search others for illegal drugs.
Another appeals court has upheld drug testing of applicants to teach school in Tennessee, noting teachers' duty to look after students' well-being.
But the Ninth Circuit court said Woodburn's rationale for universal screening - that drug use is a serious social problem affecting the performance of any job - was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1997 when it struck down Georgia's requirement that all candidates for public office undergo narcotics testing to show their commitment to the war on drugs.
The Supreme Court said the state was requiring testing for purely symbolic reasons, which was not enough to avoid the constitutional requirement that a search warrant be based on evidence of wrongdoing.
Hmm. Your standard is "political candidate"?
How low can you get?
Radwaste at March 19, 2008 4:00 PM
What?! A sensible ruling in connection with drugs? Knock me over with a feather ... .
Jay R at March 20, 2008 9:24 PM
Well, I can't wait for the traffic accident involving the librarian driving the official vehicle, where the city gets nailed for not detecting her problems with meth or something.
All please note that this is the product of the state of litigation in this country. Now, the business of the city of Woodburn will now have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal work to establish which of its jobs present a danger to the public, and thus justify drug screening; some of its departments will also have to have language prohibiting some tasks by its unscreened people.
Radwaste at March 21, 2008 9:17 AM
It's illegal for anybody in any vehicle to drive impaired. Frankly, you could be drunk off your ass all the time and pass the test for pot, so where do these tests make sense?
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2008 9:35 AM
Leave a comment