ch20 case exempt

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

Info iconThis 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
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight 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. Two bedrock principles are clearly established and could not be disputed.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This homework help was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course LAW 251 taught by Professor Willey during the Spring '08 term at W. Carolina.

Page1 / 7

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

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online