cannabisnews.com: Court Revives Challenge to Drug Testing!





Court Revives Challenge to Drug Testing!
Posted by FoM on April 15, 1999 at 06:25:09 PT
Source: SF Gate
SAN FRANCISCO Federal regulations allowing random drug testing of bus dispatchers and trainers may go too far and invade the privacy of employees in non-safety jobs, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. 
In a 3-0 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a suit by two veteran employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles and told a judge to determine, among other things, whether the public would be endangered if the employees were drunk at work. The ruling affects several dozen MTA employees but is potentially much more far-reaching, because the regulations apply to all mass transportation employees in the nation, said James Fosbinder, a lawyer for the two workers. The court's rulings are binding on federal judges in nine Western states. ``The Supreme Court has been pretty clear on what a safety-sensitive job is'' for purposes of deciding when random drug and alcohol testing is allowed, Fosbinder said. He said it was limited to ``really unusual jobs'' such as employees responsible for nuclear power plants, airplanes, or inspections at borders where drugs might be shipped. Deputy County Counsel Sharon Sanders, who represented the MTA, declined comment, saying she had not seen the ruling. The suit was filed by a husband and wife who had worked for the MTA for about 20 years, Fosbinder said. S. Denise Gonzalez was a radio dispatcher, whose duties include notifying drivers of changes in schedules and routes and the need for additional buses. Ruben C. Gonzalez is an instructor who trains drivers in buses without passengers. Mrs. Gonzalez was subjected to a random urine test in 1995. The test was negative, but Mrs. Gonzalez, a victim of abuse as a child, had a traumatic reaction to the test and needed medical treatment that kept her out of work for a time, the suit said. She hasn't returned because the MTA refused to drop the testing requirement, Fosbinder said. Her husband has not been tested, but was upset by what happened to her and by the prospect of being tested himself. Their suit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge James Ideman, who noted that U.S. Department of Transportation regulations classified their jobs as safety-sensitive and therefore subject to random drug testing at the employer's option. But the appeals court said the jobs may not be sufficiently safety-related to justify testing, despite the regulations. ``We do not yet know whether dispatchers and instructors would cause physical risk to passengers if impaired, because we do not know exactly what they do, and we know little about the testing procedure,'' said the opinion by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld. He said it was possible that a drunk dispatcher would endanger the public just like a drunk air traffic controller, as the MTA argued. On the other hand, the danger may be no greater than a gas station attendant might cause by giving wrong directions to a driver. Besides the nature of the job, Kleinfeld said, the record fails to show whether the employees were already subjected to comprehensive physical examinations, such that urine testing would not be much of an addition invasion of privacy; whether the tests were reasonably designed to catch drug abusers, and whether drug and alcohol abuse in those jobs was common. Fosbinder said it was particularly far-fetched to call the dispatcher's job safety-related. A trainer, on the other hand, may drive a bus with a trainee on board, but poses no greater threat to the public than a cook at a fast-food restaurant, the lawyer said. The case is Gonzalez vs. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 96-56808. 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by John R. Bills on April 15, 1999 at 09:54:09 PT:
Newspaper reporters and newspaper employees
Dear Sirs, I have read that newspaper reporters and others in this field are subject to drug screens. If this is true, how is their job safety related? Are they subject to egregious typing mishaps, or is it that they may go against the prohibitionist party line?
Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: