Privacy Issues in the Workplace

considered the impact of the employees’ performance, reflexes, and judgment on the safety of others.

American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 275 A California court held that a random drug test of a worker on an offshore oil drilling rig did not violate the California constitutional right to privacy due to the hazardous nature of the offshore platform which gave the employer a compelling interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace. Also, the employee had a reduced expectation of privacy because he knew when he took the job that he could be tested at any time. AFGE v. Roberts 276 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld random drug testing of correctional officers. In doing so, the court found that the government’s interest in preventing drug use by prisoners and maintaining an alert security force outweighed the privacy interests of the officers. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Department of Transportation 277 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Federal Highway Administration’s random drug testing for drivers of commercial motor vehicles, finding compelling governmental safety interest and a reduced expectation of privacy by individuals who voluntarily chose to enter a highly regulated profession with periodic extensive examinations and urinalysis. IBEW v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 278 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that all employees at a nuclear power plant could be randomly tested, including clerical, warehouse and maintenance employees not engaged in safety-sensitive work and who did not have access to the plant’s critical areas. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1533 v. Cheney 279 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disapproved of blanket drug testing of employees with clerical positions, such as pathologists and dental hygienists. And, in Luck v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co ., 280 a California court found that a computer programmer was illegally fired for refusing to provide a urine sample as part of an unannounced drug test because the employee did not perform a safety-sensitive job and the employer had not shown a compelling interest in detecting drug usage by the particular employee. As part of a judicial analysis of drug testing plans by courts throughout the country, a district court in Northern California, in American Federation of Government Employees v. Derwinski , 281 offered a specific constitutional analysis of issues such as randomness, reasonable suspicion, post-accident and follow-up testing. The court ruled that certain positions were not sufficiently safety- or security-sensitive as to justify random testing; that reasonable

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 90