{"id":8300,"date":"2013-03-28T08:02:00","date_gmt":"2013-01-30T08:19:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-12-23T18:40:16","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T23:40:16","slug":"en-us-109","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8300","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Tech college’s drug testing of students as heavy equipment operators is reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Linn State Technical College instituted a drug testing program for students because it teaches heavy equipment operators are people at risk of injury on the job if under the influence. In this circumstance, drug testing is reasonable, and the District Court\u2019s preliminary injunction is dissolved. Barrett v. Claycomb<\/a>, 705 F.3d 315 (8th Cir. 2013) [Update:<\/strong> Decided en banc: Kittle-Aikeley v. Strong<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23030 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016) (en banc) [posted here<\/a>], panel at Kittle-Aikeley v. Claycomb<\/a>, 807 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2015), prior opinion, Barrett v. Claycomb<\/a>, 705 F.3d 315 (8th Cir. 2013).]:<\/p>\n

If Supreme Court precedent teaches us anything in this area, it certainly makes clear that the public has a “surpassing safety interest” in ensuring that those in “safety-sensitive” positions have uninhibited judgment. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n<\/a>, 489 U.S. 602, 620, 634 (1989); see also Von Raab<\/a>, 489 U.S. at 668-70; Chandler, 520 U.S. at 314-17. In Skinner, the Supreme Court held that the government had demonstrated a compelling interest in drug testing certain railroad employees without suspicion because “[e]mployees subject to the tests discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences.” 489 U.S. at 628. Similarly, in Von Raab, the Court highlighted public safety concerns for Customs officials engaged in drug interdiction, and determined that the public had an interest in ensuring that these individuals remain drug-free. 489 U.S. at 670-71. In actions flowing from these Supreme Court decisions, lower courts have allowed drug-testing in other safety-sensitive occupations. See Krieg v. Seybold<\/a>, 481 F.3d 512, 518 (7th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases that allowed testing of aviation personnel, railroad safety inspectors, highway and motor carrier safety specialists, lock and dam operators, forklift operators, tractor operators, engineering operators, and crane operators).<\/p>\n

With instruction from Skinner and Von Raab, we conclude the public has a valid interest in deterring drug use among students engaged in programs posing significant safety risks to others. Indeed, Linn State offers several programs and areas of study, many of which require students to work with potentially dangerous heavy equipment, machines, chemicals, and electricity. Students operating the heavy equipment, for instance, “discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Don’t you also think that if they get a job after graduation, they might be drug tested on the job for the same reason? If a “weedwacker” handler is subject to drug testing<\/a>, I’d think a bulldozer operator would have to be.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8300"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24947,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8300\/revisions\/24947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}