Reference no: EM133387496

Question 1. A state mental health department adopted a policy calling for the random drug testing of all of its employees. Three employees objected to the policy and sought a court order, declar-ing it unconstitutional as applied to them. The employees held the positions of Psychiatric Assistant II and Office Support Assistants. The department claimed that the policy was justi-fied because of its belief that illegal drugs were being used by some department personnel and because each employee served as a caregiver and role model with respect to patients. The evidence regarding illegal drug use concerned employees at residential facilities for mentally retarded patients. The plaintiffs did not work at these facilities. Administrators were unable to cite spe-cific individuals or incidents, but they testified that they had been informed by staff and family members that drug use by employees at these facilities was occurring. The department also claimed that the need for its staff to act as role models applied to all positions as well as to both inpatient and outpatient treatment. What should the court decide? Why?

Question 2. A truck driver was subjected to a random drug test and tested positive for marijuana use. After a onfirmatory test verified the initial result, the driver was terminated. He denied having ever used marijuana. The driver passed a hair fol-licle test performed by an independent labora-tory eighty-four days after the employer's urine test. The hair follicle test is aimed at identifying persons who persistently use drugs over time. The driver also pointed to problems with the employer's drug-testing procedures. Specifically, the drug test was administered by a supervisor despite the availability of nonsupervisory employ-ees, the container had been removed from the sealed kit before the driver arrived to be tested, the driver was not instructed to wash his hands at the proper times, access to the collection site for the specimen was not restricted, and the col-lection container was not kept in full view of the driver during the time between when the speci-men was produced and the container was sealed. Did the employer fail to comply with the drug-testing procedures required by the Department of Transportation? If so, was it negligent in how it conducted the drug testing? Why or why not?

Question 3. A company's drug-testing policy allowed for drug testing of employees whose on-the-job behavior indicated the possible influence of illegal drugs or alcohol. An African American employee became involved in an argument with two other employees whom he accused of not helping him lift heavy objects. The argument subsided without further incident, but the next day one of the employees involved in the dispute and another coworker complained to a manager about the African American employee's behavior. They alleged that he had been uncooperative and unresponsive throughout the previous day. Based on this report of uncharacteristic behavior as well as rumors that the employee had previ-ously used drugs in the workplace, the company ordered a drug test. The employee tested posi-tive and was terminated. Previously, the same manager did not order a drug or alcohol test for a white employee who had shown up to work visibly intoxicated. Instead, the employee was issued a warning for questionable usage. The manager attributed the difference to his (mis-taken) belief that a test for alcohol would not have revealed anything, given the two days that had elapsed before he learned of the incident. Did this employer discriminate in drug testing the African American employee? Terminating him? Why or why not?