ch20 case exempt - Case excerpt This case has been edited...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case excerpt This case has been edited and shorted for this exercise PATRICIA S. BANGERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD P. HODEL, Defendant. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD P. HODEL, Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA January 30, 1989, Decided OPINION: HAROLD H. GREENE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE These actions challenge aspects of a drug testing program of the United States Department of the Interior. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits seek to enjoin random urinalysis testing, and plaintiffs in Bangert seek additionally to enjoin what is called reasonable suspicion testing. … The drug testing program of the Department of the Interior stems from Executive Order issued in 1986. That Order requires federal agencies to develop and implement plans to achieve a drug-free workplace by, among other means, the testing of their employees for illegal drug use. The Department, on December 17, 1987, promulgated its "Drug Free Workplace Policy and Procedures" (hereinafter plan or Department plan). Under this plan, the Secretary identified those positions deemed sufficiently sensitive to warrant "random urinalysis testing" for five specified drugs. The plan also includes "reasonable suspicion" urinalysis testing based on a non-exclusive list of five criteria. .. The random testing plan identifies sensitive positions as those "characterized by critical safety or security responsibilities as related to the mission of the Department." According to the Department, these are positions that "directly and immediately relate to public health and safety, the protection of life and property, law enforcement, or national security." Fully one-quarter of the Department's employees were determined to be in sufficiently sensitive positions to warrant random testing. On July 5, 1988, the Department's employees were given notice that testing would begin no earlier than in sixty days. Those in the positions subject to random testing were to be given an additional thirty-day notice before their
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
testing would begin. Random testing was slated to start in Washington, D.C. and in Denver, Colorado on January 9, 1989, and in other areas on March 1, 1989, but due to the pendency of this action, the government agreed to withhold all random testing until January 31, 1989. The Department planned to implement reasonable suspicion testing on October 1, 1988, but to date no one has been tested under this aspect of the program. A positive test result leads to disciplinary action, ranging from a reprimand to dismissal. Additionally, an employee testing positive will be immediately removed from his position, if it is a sensitive position as defined by the plan, and referred to the Department's drug counselling and treatment program. Refusal to proceed to counseling may likewise lead to dismissal.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Spring '08
  • Willey
  • Law, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Illegal drug trade, Drug test, Interior Department, reasonable suspicion testing

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern