Court ruling limits employment drug testing

sfgate_get_fprefs();

(03-13) 17:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --
A metropolis can't necessitate all occupation appliers to be tested for narcotics and must instead demo why drug usage in a peculiar occupation would be dangerous, a federal entreaties tribunal ruled Thursday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against the metropolis of Woodburn, Ore., which argued it was entitled to keep a drug-free workplace by requiring occupation campaigners to be screened for drugs and alcohol.

The metropolis was sued by Janet Lanier, whose occupation offering as a part-time page at the metropolis library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcoholic beverage test. A federal justice ruled the policy unconstitutional and awarded Lanier $12,400 in amends and $44,000 in legal fees, her lawyer said.

The entreaties tribunal said Thursday that the judge's opinion went too far, because the metropolis may be able to warrant drug-testing of appliers for some jobs. But the tribunal establish no footing to prove appliers for library positions.

Federal tribunals have got upheld compulsory drug showing for occupations in which public presentation "may present a great danger to the public," the entreaties Judges said. They cited Supreme Court opinions allowing drug testing of railway crews after accidents and of customs duty agents who hunt others for illegal drugs.

Another entreaties tribunal have upheld drug testing of appliers to learn school in Tennessee, noting teachers' duty to look after students' well-being.

But the Ninth Circuit tribunal said Woodburn's principle for cosmopolitan showing - that drug usage is a serious societal occupation affecting the public presentation of any job - was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1997 when it struck down Georgia's demand that all campaigners for public business office experience narcotics testing to demo their committedness to the warfare on drugs.

The Supreme Court said the state was requiring testing for purely symbolical reasons, which was not adequate to avoid the constitutional demand that a hunt warrant be based on grounds of wrongdoing.

The same logical thinking uses to a city's drug testing of appliers for mundane occupations with no connexion to safety or security, Judge Pamela Rymer said in the 3-0 ruling. Online resource

To read the ruling, travel to

E-mail British Shilling Egelko at .