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The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test.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.
Nonsense
Preemployment drug screenings are perfectly reasonable. In many states a drug free workpace policy earns the employer lower workman’s compensation insurance premiums.
While there is a need to articulate the reason the need not be specific to the position nor the applicant. A library employee that may be privy to confidential patron records certainly seems as if it would warrant a drug test prior to the extension of an offer of employment.
Remember too that this was not an enbanc decision and that the 9th circus is reversed more than an octegenarian trying to get the close parking spot at Wal*Mart.
Which Nonsense Do You Mean?
“Preemployment drug screenings are perfectly reasonable. In many states a drug free workpace policy earns the employer lower workman’s compensation insurance premiums.”
Crime-free workplace rules are perfectly reasonable, too; therefore I think employers should be allowed to search your home to make sure you don’t have any stolen property or other evidence of crime. After all, the employer has the right to screen out potential trouble-makers, right? Makes as much sense as mandatory drug tests for clerical positions. (Nobody has ever gotten drunk at work, btw, so there will never be a non-drug related accident.)
“Confidential patron records” — another red herring. What would you find in a library record that you couldn’t find in a phone book?
Drug testing is just a stunt to play along with the “War on Drugs” propaganda — it doesn’t make people better; it doesn’t make a difference in the workplace; it doesn’t reduce drug use.
And I wonder why the Ninth Circuit gets reversed so much — Could it be that they support worker rights and civil liberties? (You know, the quaint Bill of Rights.)Shame on them!! God bless Lord Scalia, keeping the rabble in line!!
Your point?
It seems you simply don’t like drug testing.
Crime free workplace rules, there is no such thing. Nor is there an articuable reason for any.
If you were a librarian you would understand that confidential patron records was not a red herring, but an important pillar of the ethics under which librarians operate.
The Ninth Circuit is reversed so frequently because of its workload and because they are frequently wrong.
Your comment adds little substance to the discussion. I wonder why you bothered.
My Point
Do we have to agree with you to be considered substantive?
Why yes, you’re right, I don’t like drug testing. (And I’m not even a druggie!) I also don’t like arbitrary rules that provide no real benefit, either.
The point was, as I’m sure you know, is that there is no articulable reason for drug testing in the workplace, particularly in a clerical position that has nothing to do with law enforcement, medical care, operating heavy machinery, etc. It is simply another way of chipping away at the rights of individuals, particularly those who can’t afford to get lawyered up, and a way of making an empty geture for political points. (One that wastes lots of money on drug testing companies, btw — money that could be spent on library materials.) Drug testing has little or nothing to do with providing a safer work environment, or protecting patron confidentiality. (Really, give me a break! Do only drug users violate confidentiality rules? Despite what you seem to think, I am a librarian, and I believe very strongly in the librarian’s code of ethics — all of it, not just the Republican parts. 😉 )
If you are a librarian..
You could look up the word substantive.
Your comment was substantially:
I don’t think there are confidential patron records.
I think that a certain public policy is bad.
You finish up with some odd diatribe about the SCOTUS.
How that could be construed as substantive is beyond me. Substantive does not mean agreeing with me.
There is a reason for drug testing prior to the extension of a job offer, and this will most probably be reversed.
I don’t see a pre-employment drug test as an unnecessary intrusion into someone’s life. If she had been an applicant at a grocery store or private company it is almost certain that she would have been required to take just such at test, however since she applied for a government job she feels that she is entitled to some special consideration. No one is entitled to be given any job, although all are entitled to fair consideration.
Apparently the applicant does not like drug tests either, perhaps she is a drug abuser, perhaps she feels it is some sort of right. Every truck driver, boat captain, policeman, IBM employee, airline pilot, and every employee of any private government contractor or grantee that does over 100K of business with the Federal government annually, is tested.
You seem to be quite taken with J. Scalia, probably because of his dissent in Von Raab, but remember that was a dissenting opinion and the rest of the Court upheld the Constitutionality of the regulation regarding drug testing.
patron records
our patron records have drivers license numbers and some have social security numbers – wouldn’t find those in the phone book….
Alcohol screening?
Screening for Alcohol use…which is perfectly LEGAL?
None of your @#@! business would be my response also.
The standard criminal background check would turn up any DUIs or PIs anyway.
As long as someone isn’t drunk on the job or too hungover to function, it’s nobody’s business what the Library employee does on weekends.
The “War on Drugs” began a “War on Civil Liberties” that has only gotten worse with the “War on Terror”.
I don’t drink myself, but I do still care about civil liberties in principle.
“In many states a drug free workpace policy earns the employer lower workman’s compensation insurance premiums.”
Well, I support single-payer, universal health care anyway, so who cares.
disjointed
Your argument is very disjointed and difficult to understand.
Drug screening was noted as a requirement for the position. I frankly don’t care if people want to farm their own coca plants in their gargage, but if you are being tested, lay off the drugs for a bit before hand. It really can’t be that hard. If you are addicted and in a program the test will certainly be positive, but since you will have a medical exemption it will not matter.
Workman’s compensation insurance has nothing to do with universal health care. Even if there is a single payer system workman’s compensation insurnace will still provide benefits for injured workers unable to work, and workers who are killed at work. Health insurance is only a portion of workman’s comp.
I predict this too will be reversed.