PDT SAN FRANCISCO --
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withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test.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.
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.
Another appeals court has upheld drug
testing of applicants to teach school in Tennessee, noting
teachers' duty to look after students' well-being.
But the Ninth Circuit court said
Woodburn's rationale for universal screening - that drug use
is a serious social problem affecting the performance of any
job - was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1997 when it
struck down Georgia's requirement that all candidates for
public office undergo narcotics testing to show their
commitment to the war on drugs.
The Supreme Court said the state was
requiring testing for purely symbolic reasons, which was not
enough to avoid the constitutional requirement that a search
warrant be based on evidence of wrongdoing.
The same reasoning applies to a
city's drug testing of applicants for everyday jobs with no
connection to safety or security, Judge Pamela Rymer said in
the 3-0 ruling.
