City Loses
Appeal over Pre-employment Drug Testing
[Posted 03/17/2008]
The 9th
US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has
ruled it unconstitutional for a city to require all
prospective employees to pass a pre-employment drug
test as a condition of employment.
Janet
Lanier sued the City of Woodburn, Oregon after
being turned down for a job as a part-time library
page when she refused to submit to a drug and
alcohol test. Woodburn officials argued that their
policy requiring a pre-employment drug and alcohol
screen was adopted to deter drug use and help
maintain a drug-free work environment. A district
court judge ruled in Lanier’s favor, stating that
the policy requiring testing of all prospective
employees was unconstitutional because it was not
based on reasonable suspicion. The City of Woodburn
appealed the decision.
The
federal appeals court agreed “that Woodburn’s
policy is unconstitutional as applied because the
City failed to demonstrate a special need to screen
a prospective page for drugs.” The court did not go
so far as to rule that the policy could never be
applied to any City position, however. Mandatory
drug testing for jobs with the potential to “pose a
great danger to the public” is generally upheld by
the courts.
Eugene
Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said the
ruling applies only to government agencies and not
to private employers.
Related Links:
Court of Appeals Ruling
San Francisco Chronicle Article
The Oregonian Article
ACLU Report
Return to News
Summary Page:
Occupational Health News Summaries