Good news for once, perhaps the unending march towards loss of all privacy will slow down a bit. For a second anyway.
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.
[From Court ruling limits employment drug testing]
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The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test.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.
Federal courts have upheld mandatory drug screening for jobs in which performance "may pose a great danger to the public," the appeals judges said. They cited Supreme Court rulings allowing drug testing of railroad crews after accidents and of customs agents who search others for illegal drugs.
Mandatory drug testing is, and always been, unconstitutional, in my mind anyway. If you crash an oil super-tanker, sure, get tested for every inebriant known (alcohol, oxycontin, nicotine gum, all of em) . Otherwise, unless there is credible evidence of malfeasance, why are you presumed guilty?
