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The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test.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.
The appeals court said Thursday that the judge's ruling went too far, because the city may be able to justify drug-testing of applicants for some jobs. But the court found no basis to test applicants for library positions.
I thought we still had a drug czar and were committed to Just Saying No even if it doesn't have the cache of other, trendier causes. No? If there's a no tolerance policy, then should everyone be clean and sober at work - especially if employed by a public agency?
Don't get me wrong, I'm against unnecessary invasions of privacy, this just seems at odds with the rest of our culture as we treat drugs and booze.
No comments:
Post a Comment