When the district court issued a sweeping injunction that promptly stopped an order to require 85,000 people to report to suspicionless drug testing, it was too broad, the Eleventh Circuit said last month.

They did mention that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that suspicion-less drug tests by the government are an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

However, SCOTUS did not strike through suspicionless testing entirely, but rather limited it to a balancing test that looked at many exceptions, particularly when state employees had to carry weapons, operate heavy machinery, and were involved in any other safety-sensitive positions. Or, if a threat to public safety was involved.

In short, the Union was requesting that too much of the EO be struck down, while the State tried to maintain that too much of the EO should be applied. In the end, it’s about finding a good balance.

The Eleventh Circuit did not reverse the decision in granting Rick Scott and Florida summary judgment, however, on the grounds that the state has obviously not justified the broad scope of the EO. They have instead remanded the case, tacking on the requirement that the state must demonstrate a need for suspicionless drug testing on a more particular basis, rather than just a random blanket one.

Bottom line: random drug testing is fine, but there needs to be a more valid reason for it than, “just cause.”

Related Resources:

  • American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 79, Richard Flamm vs. Rick Scott (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
  • Drug Testing at Work (FindLaw)
  • Should Your Company Change Its Drug Testing Policy? (FindLaw’s In-House Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules