The courts have been giving Florida Governor Rick Scott a few lessons in the Bill of Rights. He does not appear to be listening, but perhaps the voters of Florida are. Scott wants the state to require drug testing of all welfare recipients and all state employees. A temporary injunction put a stop to the welfare testing and now federal judge Ursula Ungara has ended Scott’s bizarre vision of every state employee peeing into a cup.
The state argued, in part, that the program was voluntary: people don’t have to do it, they’ll just lose their jobs if they don’t. Some definition of “voluntary”!
There are times and circumstances where drug testing is useful and necessary. For jobs involving public safety and genuine risk, drug testing should be mandated. But courts remain sensitive to the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Under the “probable cause” standard, courts look for specific risks and exposures, not for blanket policies that cover everyone. There should be evidence of a problem, possible harm if drug abuse takes place and an over-riding safety interest. This may well describe the situation of a police officer or firefighter, but not a clerk in the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Insubstantial and Speculative Risk
Judge Ungaro pointed out the fundamental flaw of Scott’s executive order: it infringes privacy interests in pursuit of a public interest which is both insubstantial and speculative. She writes that “the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial- important enough to override the individual’s acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion.”
By trying to lump all state employees into one big drug testing net, Governor Scott displays his contempt for government and the people who carry out its work. Beyond that, his drug testing obsession runs contrary to a fundamental premise in the Bill of Rights. Someone needs to remind the governor that his job is to protect the rights of every Florida citizen, not compromise these rights in the interests of punitive and ill-conceived policies.
A Random Note on the Original “Great Scott”
The origin of the phrase “Great Scott” is unclear, but Wikipedia surmises that the reference is to U.S. Army, General Winfield Scott, known to his troops as Old Fuss and Feathers. He weighed 300 pounds in his later years and was too fat to ride a horse.
Posts Tagged ‘drug testing’
Not-So-Great Scott: Punitive Drug Testing in Florida
Tuesday, May 1st, 2012New Jersey Courts: Zero Tolerance, Zero Compassion
Friday, February 24th, 2012You have to feel sorry for Erik Martin. He went to work for Quick Chek Corp in 1999 as an assistant store manager. He was promoted to store manager in the summer of 2000. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease that same year. After informing his supervisor of his diagnosis, she advised him to keep his illness “hush, hush.” Martin complied, and never mentioned his illness to the company’s HR director. Martin missed work in 2004 and 2006 due to two mini-strokes and took a two-week leave of absence in 2007 because of depression. Despite his formidable physical difficulties – unrelated to work – he returned to work as soon as he was able.
In March 2008, Martin requested and received a demotion because his medical condition, combined with the lack of an assistant manager, precluded him from satisfying his work obligations. Later that same month, Martin injured his back at work. He contacted his doctor, who instructed him to take a darvocet that was previously prescribed to Martin’s mother-in-law. Martin visited the doctor the following day, at which time he was prescribed percocet to manage his pain.
Drug Policy
In keeping with company policy, Martin was drug tested two days after the injury. A few days later, he was contacted by the testing facility. They asked him to disclose the medications he was taking. He told them about his prescriptions, including the percocet, and also informed them about the darvocet he took on the day of the injury. Because he tested positive for darvocet without a prescription, the testing company reported a failed drug test and Quick Chek terminated Martin.
A reasonable person might think that Martin was in compliance with the company policy. He took a pill at the verbal direction of his doctor. Was this a “prescribed” medication? Well, that’s where a problem arises.
The word “prescription” comes from the Latin “praescriptus” compounded from “prae”, before + scribere, to write = to write before. Historically, a prescription was written before the drug was prepared and administered.
It appears that a “verbal prescription” is an oxymoron: if it isn’t in writing, it isn’t a prescription. [NOTE: the court ruling did not even address this issue.]
The HR director testified that his decision to terminate Martin was based on the failed drug test. He further testified that in his thirteen years managing human resources for Quick Chek, he never made an exception to the company’s zero-tolerance drug abuse policy. The director also stated that he was not aware of Martin’s Parkinson’s disease until this litigation commenced.Thus Martin’s termination was consistent with company policy. And in the view of the court, the termination was perfectly legal.
The court wrote:
Unquestionably, the company’s drug policy was enforced in a harsh fashion against Martin. The company relied completely on the assessment of the testing company that Martin “failed” the drug test. Quick Chek operates in such a way as to delegate total discretion to interpret the drug test results to the testing company. Once deemed to have failed the drug test, an employee is terminated without exception with no apparent right of appeal. In Vargo v. National Exchange Carriers Assn., Inc., 376 N.J.Super. 364, 383 (App. Div. 2005), we held that a company need not investigate possible legal reasons for a positive drug test before taking action with regard to a prospective employee; nor should such a duty exist with respect to existing employees. NJLAD is not offended by a private company’s lack of compassion in these circumstances.
Note how the court starts with a precedent involving a job applicant and then applies it to a loyal employee of long standing: “nor should such a duty exist with respect to existing employees.” The court may not see any difference between an applicant and a loyal employee, but I do.
No Room for Compassion
The court “is not offended by a private company’s lack of compassion.” Well, I am. Zero tolerance policies back companies into a corner; their rigidity may eliminate the need for discretion, but in doing so, these policies also eliminate many good employees. A little discretion in the hands of good managers is a powerful tool toward building a positive work culture. By contrast, zero tolerance policies may provide an illusion of control over matters that are difficult to control, but they are not an effective way to run a company (or a school, for that matter). Indeed, the policy makes it difficult for the company to fulfill its promise as a great place to work:
Quick Chek is proud to be one of NJ’s Best Places to Work! With 2,600 team members in over 120 stores, we strive to create a positive experience and fun environment where core values are nurtured, hard work is rewarded and leadership is cultivated.
I wonder what Erik Martin thinks of the company’s “core values.” When his illness prevented him from doing his job, he requested and was granted a demotion. When his illness prevented him from working, he took (unpaid) time off and focused on recovery. When he was injured at work, he followed his doctor’s orders and his company’s procedures. Martin’s loyalty and perseverance are admirable qualities, but they did not buy him much in the corporate offices of Quick Chek or the courtrooms of New Jersey.
Florida: Drug Test Everyone!
Thursday, June 2nd, 2011Governor Rick Scott has issued Executive Order Number 11-58 compelling all state agencies under his control to implement a comprehensive drug testing program: all job applicants must undergo pre-employment testing. All current employees – regardless of what they do – must be randomly tested every quarter. Because drugs stay in the body for hours and even days after they are used, the governor is attempting to control every waking minute of the state workforce. Not even commercial drivers are subject to such stringent monitoring.
There is no question that drug testing can play an important role in a comprehensive safety program. For workers whose jobs put themselves or others at risk, random testing can be smart policy. For employers struggling with a rampant drug culture, drug testing often makes sense. [I remember discussing this issue at a workers comp seminar some years ago. The owner of a roofing company said, “I could never implement drug testing. Half my guys would fail!” (I made an immediate note to alert the underwriting team.)]
Even as we acknowledge that drug testing is appropriate under certain circumstances, we must recognize its limitations. Testing science itself, while significantly more effective than it was a decade ago, is not 100 percent reliable. The producing and subsequent custody of urine samples is at best embarrassing and at worst an invasion of privacy. Drug testing does send a message, but there are times and circumstances – such as now in Florida state government – when this message is demoralizing and counter-productive.
Within weeks of the issuance of the executive order, the ACLU sued to put a stop to the program.
Ideology and Policy
The testing of all employees, without even considering job function or safety exposure, crosses the line between best practice and rigid ideology. This policy does not stem from “business necessity” nor does it take into account individual freedom and the right to privacy. Using the governor’s logic, you could argue that everyone in America should, for one reason or another, be tested for illegal drugs. This is bad policy and, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. Here’s hoping the courts toss out this executive order and restore some light to the Sunshine state.
Fire the Smokers! Tax the Fat?
Monday, August 17th, 2009Back in December of 2006 we blogged the story of Scott Rodrigues, a new hire of the Scotts lawn care company, who was fired after failing a drug test. No news here, perhaps, except that the drug in his system, nicotine is perfectly legal. Scott’s is self-insured for health benefits, so they have a vested interest in making sure that employees follow basic wellness practices.
On his way to a pre-placement drug test, Mr. Rodrigues chewed on Nicorette gum. He was trying to kick the habit. Ironically, the Nicorette may have triggered the positive finding for nicotine. Rodrigues was hired provisionally and then abruptly terminated once the test results were released.
Rodrigues brought suit in federal court for violation of privacy and civil rights. Judge George O’Toole has ruled in favor of the company. The judge found no violation of privacy laws, as Rodrigues smoked while walking down the street and in a restaurant parking lot. His supervisor spotted a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his truck. Would the judge have ruled for Rodrigues if the employer had peeked through a window to see him smoking at home?
O’Toole also rejected the notion that the firing violated a 1974 federal law that protects employee rights to benefits. O’Toole ruled that Rodrigues was not yet a bona fide employee and was working on the condition that he pass the urinalysis.
Jim King, a spokesman for Scotts, said the smoking ban has never been used to fire an “existing” employee. It is used solely to screen out applicants. Since the ban went into effect in 2005, the percentage of smokers among the company’s 7,000 employees has fallen to 7 percent from 28 percent.
[The Insider notes in passing that even as a “provisional” employee, Rodrigues was covered by workers comp from the moment he began working – indeed, while he was on his way to the drug testing lab.]
Whether employees can smoke or not depends upon the state they work in. A few states (e.g., Kentucky, Louisiana) explicitly protect smoker rights. Other states do not. It’s interesting that Rodrigues pursued his case in federal court, probably because Massachusetts laws offered no protection to smokers.
Is Obesity Next?
We all know that smoking increases the risk of illness and the cost of medical coverage. The same goes for obesity. So the next front in the battle to control the business side of medical costs may well be the bathroom scale. The New York Times magazine profiles the Cleveland Clinic, which has been upheld as a model for medical cost control. Two years ago, they stopped hiring smokers. Delos M. Cosgrove, the heart surgeon who is the clinic’s chief executive, would like to expand the hiring ban to include applicants who are obese.
“Why is it unfair? Has anyone ever shown the law of conservation of matter doesn’t apply?” Cosgrove states that people’s weight is a reflection of how much they eat and how active they are. The country has grown fat because it’s consuming more calories and burning fewer. Our national weight problem brings huge costs, both medical and economic. Yet our anti-obesity efforts have none of the urgency of our antismoking efforts. “We should declare obesity a disease and say we’re going to help you get over it.”
Should the Cleveland Clinic – or any other employer- decline to hire obese people, it will be interesting to track the results. Where obesity can be traced back to genetic or chemical issues – where it qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act- employers would be guilty of discrimination. If no such causes can be specified, employers may be on solid ground. (The unaddressed issue in these hiring practices, of course, is the loss of a vast pool of talented and often essential workers.)
A recent article in Health Affairs estimated the annual cost of obesity to be $147 billion and growing. That translates into $1,250 per household, mostly in taxes and insurance premiums.
The Fat Tax
Cosgrove is interested in an idea that some economists favor: charging higher health-insurance premiums to anyone with a certain body-mass index. Call it the Fat Tax. Another alternative might be taxing the calorie-rich foods that lead to obesity: just imagine paying a little surcharge for your large order of fries, your jumbo soda and your two-for-one pizza. That would be interesting, indeed! Just as smokers pay a tax-driven premium for their cigarettes, eaters would be taxed for their food addictions.
This is simply not going to happen. To be sure, fundamental wellness is the cornerstone of any plan to contain health care costs. But when the public good collides with the rights of freedom and privacy, individual rights will win out. Policy wonks may not like it, but citizens can eat whatever they damn well please. Lighting up after that supersized meal? Well, that’s one area where the public good pretty much trumps the private right.
Fancy Pants and Broken Lives
Tuesday, April 14th, 2009The Sunday Times had an article about tough times in Palm Beach, where the super-wealthy reside. They like to shop at Trillion, a store that kind of indicates, by the name, that if you have to ask how much something costs you don’t belong in the store. The last time Bernie Madoff was in Trillion, he fell hard for a $2,000 pair of worsted spun cashmere pants, which Trillion didn’t have in his size. So Trillion ordered the pants from Italy. They arrived, alas, after Madoff had been busted. I don’t think he’ll be needing the pants where he currently resides. His new outfits – undoubtedly lacking that fine cashmere “hand” – are provided free of charge by the state of New York.
But this is not a posting about Bernie. The subject is one Victor Leon, a 26 year old illegal immigrant who fell off a roof three years ago. He was paralyzed and now lives in constant pain. He’s run up about half a million in medical expenses at St. Mary’s Medical Center, with the prospect of further surgery to come. You might expect that workers comp will reimburse St. Mary’s, but that is unlikely to happen. The hospital, like Leon, is on its own.
What about Comp?
In most states, despite his illegal status, Leon would be covered by workers comp, up to but probably not including the voc rehab he clearly needs. Coverage is apparently not a given in the Sunshine state. A post-injury urinalysis run at the hospital found traces of cocaine and marijuana in Leon’s blood. His employer, Altec, believes that the failed drug test, combined with Leon’s undocumented status, are grounds for denying his claim. Leon’s lawyer, supported by a toxicologist, asserts that the test does not prove that Leon was impaired at the time of the incident. Leon admits to taking “about four puffs” the night before, but he had a good night’s sleep (alas, the last of his life) and was fully alert the next morning at work.
OK. If comp does not apply, Leon can sue his employer, right? Well he tried, but failed there, too. A civil court judge ruled that Altec owed Leon nothing, because they carried workers comp for their employees…Which takes up back to Leon’s comp claim, which was, of course, denied. Leon is caught up in a rather ferocious version of Catch 22.
Leon’s life is ruined, not because of greed or malice (sit still, Bernie!). He lied in order to get work. He performed his job to the best of his ability. He was seriously injured through an unfortunate miscommunication with a co-worker. While he has benefitted from good medical care, he is penniless and now homeless. He would return to Mexico, but if he does, all hope of winning his legal case would be lost.
So there you have it: A tale of two broken lives in America. One man dreams of the $2,000 pants he almost got to wear and the other dreams of being able to pull on a pair of cheap jeans. There are probably some compelling lessons to be drawn from these parallel stories. I’ll leave it to our readers to figure out exactly what those lessons might be.
When work turns deadly
Friday, October 17th, 2003Sometimes when workplace prevention breaks down, the events affect more than your employees as was the case in last week’s tragic N.Y. ferry crash that resulted in 10 deaths and 42 injuries. The accident investigation is underway, with all eyes on the Captain. Substance abuse testing of the crew showed no problem areas, but there have been some as-yet unconfirmed reports that the Captain was incapacitated after failing to take blood pressure medication. There will no doubt be prevention lessons that all employers can learn as the blame game in this event plays out.
Also worth noting: as public transport employees with “safety sensitive” jobs, the ferry crew were subject to random drug and alcohol testing as required by the D.O.T. But even those employers whose industries do not fall under the “safety sensitive” mandate should consider building an alcohol and drug free workplace.
