TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/040389/04038900.009

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 5KB | 82 lines

LAW, Page 62

A Boost for Drug Testing

The Supreme Court upholds screening employees in the lab


    The wreck was the bloodiest in Amtrak's history. On Jan. 4,
1987, a string of Conrail locomotives rolled past warning signals
near Baltimore and collided with a high-speed passenger train
carrying more than 600 people. The fiery crash killed 16 and
injured 176. Public dismay turned to anger when it was revealed
that engineer Ricky Gates had been smoking marijuana at the
controls of the Conrail train. Gates admitted the drug use and
pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a urine test, required by the
Government of railroad employees involved in serious accidents,
revealed traces of marijuana. The tragedy fueled public support for
the Government's expanding program to test employees for drugs. But
the proliferation of testing among both public and private workers
has spawned legal challenges from civil libertarians and labor
leaders who see the antidrug campaign as a dangerous invasion of
privacy.

    Last week the U.S. Supreme Court, in its first rulings on the
drug-testing issue, upheld, by a vote of 7 to 2, the
constitutionality of the Government regulations that require
railroad crews involved in accidents to submit to prompt urinalysis
and blood tests. The Justices also upheld, 5 to 4, urine tests for
U.S. Customs Service employees seeking drug-enforcement posts. Said
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh: "The court recognized that the
Government can, and indeed should, take all necessary and
reasonable steps to prevent drug use by employees in sensitive
positions."

    The decisions could help the Bush Administration's drive to
curb drugs on the job. A 1986 Executive Order by former President
Reagan authorizes drug testing throughout the Federal Government.
So far, more than 50 agencies, including the Agriculture and
Interior Departments, have moved to start up programs. The random,
unscheduled urine tests that some agencies use have drawn the
fiercest opposition from staff members. No fewer than 14 challenges
are winding their way through appellate courts.

    Private companies have enthusiastically followed the federal
lead in testing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 43%
of the nation's largest firms, including IBM, AT&T and 3M, have
implemented drug-screening programs for job applicants, employees
or both. Last week's high-court rulings have no direct legal
bearing on most private companies, but the decisions are expected
to encourage industry to increase testing.

    Opponents of Government screening argue that it is an
"unreasonable search," barred by the Fourth Amendment. They contend
that employees should be tested only if there is good reason to
suspect drug use. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of both
decisions, concluded that in the cases of rail and Customs
employees, the Government need not have "individualized suspicion."
Train workers, he explained, "discharge duties fraught with . . .
risks of injury," and "employees involved in drug interdiction
reasonably should expect effective inquiry into their fitness and
probity." Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented bluntly: "Compelling
a person to produce a urine sample on demand . . . intrudes deeply
on privacy and bodily integrity." Normally conservative Justice
Antonin Scalia, who joined his more liberal colleagues in
dissenting from the Customs decision, was equally sharp: "The
Customs Service rules are a kind of immolation of privacy and human
dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use."

    Some legal scholars worried about the court's direction in
future cases. "Will it be limited to safety-sensitive positions or
broadened to include any public employee who is a role model?"
asked University of Michigan Law Professor Yale Kamisar. Other
experts doubted that the court would uphold random drug tests for
a broad spectrum of Government employees. "The pattern of votes on
the court suggests that as you get closer to mainstream workers,
the number of dissenters picks up," observed Columbia University
Law Professor Gerard Lynch.

    Still, testing is likely to spread, and many workers are, to
say the least, uncomfortable with the idea. Peter Appelt, a
Government employee, had to walk through an office full of people
with a little cup in hand to get a promotion. "It was quite
embarrassing," he says. "A nurse followed me into the men's room
and stood outside the stall." He passed the test, and is now a
senior inspector for the Customs Service at New York City's Kennedy
International Airport.