I was happy to see this rare victory for people who are concerned about privacy. It says the government needs to limit drug testing of employees. I am sure private companies are still free to do as they please but, this is a minor victory nonetheless. :00hour
Court ruling limits employment drug testing
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008
(03-13) 17:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A city can't require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against the city of Woodburn, Ore., which argued it was entitled to maintain a drug-free workplace by requiring job candidates to 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The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test.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.
The same reasoning applies to a city's drug testing of applicants for everyday jobs with no connection to safety or security, Judge Pamela Rymer said in the 3-0 ruling.
Court ruling limits employment drug testing
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008
(03-13) 17:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A city can't require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against the city of Woodburn, Ore., which argued it was entitled to maintain a drug-free workplace by requiring job candidates to 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.
The same reasoning applies to a city's drug testing of applicants for everyday jobs with no connection to safety or security, Judge Pamela Rymer said in the 3-0 ruling.
