ROBIN'S NOTE: I am happy to have Tommy Eden back again for a guest post. Tommy is from Constangy’s offices in Opelika, Alabama, and West Point, Georgia. He drafts DOT and state-specific drug testing policies for clients nationwide, and he serves on the Board of the Substance Abuse Program Administrators Association.
Employers often want to know how much “smoke” there has to be before they can require an employee to take a “reasonable suspicion” drug test.
A recent case from Florida illustrates what is not reasonable suspicion: If you’re sending the employee for a test only because you can’t stand him, you don’t have reasonable suspicion.
(Please note that the court was deciding at a very early stage in the lawsuit only whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, would state a legal claim. The court did not find that any of the following actually happened.)
Michael Hudson, a multi-media specialist for government-access channel for the City of Riviera Beach, claimed that he had a good employment history, having received “excellent” performance appraisals and no discipline. In his capacity as a multi-media specialist, he was not in a safety-sensitive position, either.
However, he alleged, he had an ongoing dispute with the son of the City’s Human Resources Director. The son was the City’s fire chief, but Mr. Hudson’s troubles allegedly began after the son was promoted to Assistant City Manager.
According to Mr. Hudson’s lawsuit, the HR Director, acting in collusion with her son, told Mr. Hudson that he was required to have a “reasonable suspicion” drug test, as authorized by a collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Hudson reluctantly agreed to take a breathalyzer, which was negative. He also took a urine test, which was negative. He also took a hair test. When Mr. Hudson asked about the basis for the HR Director’s “reasonable suspicion” that he was using illegal drugs, he said that she angrily retorted, “It doesn’t work like that. I don’t have to give you copies of anything.” He showed her a copy of the Florida Drug-Free Workplace Act, and claimed that she sarcastically asked him what he was going to do about it.
Eventually, she provided him with a one-paragraph written explanation, saying that other employees had told her that he looked like he was smoking marijuana and that his eyes were glassy.
Mr. Hudson withheld the HR Director’s access to his hair test results, and he was terminated as a result. He alleged that at his unemployment hearing, the HR Director testified that she had selected him “on a whim[,] a mere hunch” and said she had been selecting employees for testing that way for years. She also allegedly testified under oath that she couldn’t identify the employees who had supposedly raised the concerns about Mr. Hudson’s drug use, and said she couldn’t even remember whether they were male or female.
Mr. Hudson sued the City, the HR Director, and another employee for violation of his rights under a variety of laws and constitutional provisions. A federal judge in Florida found that he had stated a valid claim under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the HR Director. The judge’s finding means that the claim will not be dismissed in the initial stages, and that discovery will proceed, followed by the possibility of a trial. As stated above, the judge did not decide that Mr. Hudson’s allegations were true.
Although the case involves a public-sector employer, and although the case is far from over, it contains some good lessons for all employers.
*Make sure that your supervisors and managers are trained on the currently accepted signs of drug use so that they can make sound “reasonable cause” determinations.
*Periodically review your drug policies with your employees.
*Adopt a policy requiring employees to let you know before they start work if they are consuming any substances, legal or illegal, that might impair their work performance or safety on the job. (And make sure you don’t use the information in a manner that might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.)
*If you want to “get even” with an employee in the way that the HR Director allegedly did, be sure you get counsel from cooler heads before doing something that you’ll regret.
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010