USDA Forest Service employees who handle at-risk youth in residential Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers are subject to government imposed random drug testing. They work in the field, and they are a long way away from hospitals if help is needed because somebody got hurt. Nat\u2019l Fedn. of Fed. Employees-IAM v. Vilsack, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37033 (D. D.C. April 6, 2011):<\/p>\n
b. \u201cOperational Realities\u201d of JCCCC Employees<\/em><\/p>\n
The Court next evaluates whether JCCCC employees have a diminished expectation of privacy given the nature of their employment. The Supreme Court has made clear that the \u201coperational realities of the workplace may render entirely reasonable certain work-related intrusions by supervisors and co-workers that might be viewed as unreasonable in other contexts.\u201d Von Raab<\/a>, 489 U.S. at 671. Thus, \u201cit is plain that certain forms of public employment may diminish privacy expectations even with respect to [] personal searches.\u201d Id. Courts have held, for example, that employees\u2019 \u201cexpectation of privacy is lessened [when they] occupy positions that require stringent background checks,\u201d Stigile<\/a>, 110 F.3d at 804; see also Von Raab<\/a>, 489 U.S. at 677; Nat\u2019l Treasury Emps. Union v. U.S. Customs Service<\/a>, 27 F.3d 623, 629, 307 U.S. App. D.C. 173 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, although courts have recognized that incumbent employees\u2019 \u201cprivacy interests are greater than applicants,\u201d see Transp. Inst. v. U.S. Coast Guard<\/a>, 727 F. Supp. 648, 655 (D.D.C. 1989), such privacy expectations are lessened when employees had advance notice of possible testing. Am. Fed\u2019n of Gov\u2019t Emps. v. Dole<\/a>, 670 F. Supp. 445, 447-48 (D.D.C. 1987); see also Aubrey v. Sch. Bd. of Lafayette Parish<\/a>, 148 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff had \u201cnotice that his position as a custodian was specifically designated as safety sensitive and that he would be subject to random testing. …\u201d); Krieg v. Seybold<\/a>, 427 F. Supp. 2d 842, 856 (N.D. Ind. 2006) (employees had \u201cdiminished expectation of privacy because random drug testing was one of the bargained-for provisions in the 2003-2004 CBA.\u201d).<\/p>\n
The defendants cite five key factors for their position that JCCCC employees have a reduced expectation of privacy. First, it is an operational reality that these employees work with at-risk youth in residential settings and are responsible for the students\u2019 safety and welfare. Defs\u2019 Mem., at 18-20. Second, the JCCCC employees must help maintain and enforce a zero tolerance drug environment for the students, and this policy requires no drug use among either the students or the staff, no matter the position. Id. at 12-15, 18-19. Third, the JCCCCs are located in rural or remote areas and employees must therefore be able to drive students or staff to services located elsewhere, including in emergency situations. Id. at 22. Fourth, the JCCCC employees have voluntarily submitted to rigorous background checks before employment and undergo periodic re-investigations. Id. at 16. Finally, the defendants maintain that employees have been on notice of testing since 1996, when the USDA first designated them for testing; and the new NFFE-USDA Collective Bargaining Agreement provided further notice of impending drug-testing provisions. Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading