Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » May 2000
Legal Issues in the Baron Drug Testing Case
The state of the law with respect to drug testing in the workplace is still evolving. The Baron case is one of numerous challenges to mandatory drug testing programs nationwide that have been mounted by public employees. Generally speaking, those challenges - as was the case with Baron - have asserted that urine testing not based on reasonable suspicion violates government employees' Fourth Amendment rights.
In the Baron case, the policy in question was ruled unconstitutional and overbroad because it applied to applicants for all positions with the City of Hollywood without taking into consideration the particular job classifications or whether or not they were so-called "safety-sensitive" positions.
Since there were no factual disputes in this case to be resolved by a judge, the remaining issue before the court was the constitutionality of the policy - specifically whether the city, in fact, had a "special need" that justified the suspicionless drug testing of all new applicants as a condition of employment.
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [state and federal] searches and seizures …," gives some protection to public sector employees against their employers' prying eyes. With respect to drug testing, it requires that government "connect its interest in testing to the particular job duties of the applicants it wishes to test."
By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "No State shall …deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law …," employees like Thomas Baron are considered to have a property interest in their jobs, and the right to due process places significant restrictions on arbitrary dismissals unrelated to job performance.
Nonetheless, privacy and due process rights are still largely unprotected in the American workplace. The courts have said "there are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine," yet a large percentage of government employees not suspected of drug use are still being subjected to drug tests on a daily basis. Drug testing, as stated in several notable Supreme Court cases, including Chandler v. Miller, Vernonia School District v. Acton and Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, constitutes a "search" as defined in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments "because it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable.…"
Thus, U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, the federal judge assigned to the case, was left to deal with the question of whether the test was "reasonable." Generally, a search by government officials must ordinarily be based on "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing" to be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. There are exceptions, however, based on "special needs" that must be "substantial - important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest …."
In those situations, as was the case with Baron, courts must closely examine the competing public and private interests of both parties - pitting the individual's privacy concerns against the city's alleged need to hire productive, drug-free employees. It was the City of Hollywood's responsibility in this case to demonstrate that there was a direct correlation between the employee's job duty and the "nature of the feared violation" - illicit drug use. But according to Judge Ryskamp, who ruled against the city in a 13-page decision, the municipality was unable to produce concrete evidence that showed there was a history of prior drug use among its accountants or others to justify a "special need" to drug test all prospective job applicants.
In the past, the courts have stated that only in cases "where risk to public safety is substantial and real," or where "public safety is genuinely in jeopardy" as with, say, automobile drivers, construction workers, and school crossing guards, may suspicionless drug testing be considered "reasonable." In this case, though, the city was unable to show that Baron's job as an accountant involved "high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks" that had the potential to cause injury to others.
Faced with a "momentary lapse" in judgment, an accountant by virtue of drug-induced inaptitude who under- or over- charges for water and sewer rates cannot -- Judge Ryskamp reasoned -- seriously jeopardize public safety or cause irreparable harm to others, as was the case with Skinner, which upheld drug testing for railway employees involved in train accidents.
The so-called "harm" resulting from the miscalculations of a drug-impaired accountant may affect the city's financial standing, but it won't necessarily cause "immediate injury to others." He also rejected the city's argument that drug users are more likely to embezzle funds to maintain their addiction.
In addition, the city's line of reasoning that drug testing is necessary to maintain a "positive image" and to assure that public funds are "in good hands …[and] not in jeopardy of being squandered" failed to convince the federal district court that it was justified in drug testing. Instead, he viewed the positive-image argument as merely being "symbolic" -- insufficient to meet the "special needs" standard previously established in other court cases.
