Jakubowicz v. Dittemore, 2006 U.S. Dist. [W.D. Mo.]
Prior to the trial date, the parties informed the Court that they wished to present their evidence in writing. Part of the evidence included the depositions of the Director of Facility Operations for DMH, Felix T. Vincenz, and that of the Deputy Director of DMH, Linda Roebuck. They also wanted to present in writing, various terms that the parties had adopted. The Plaintiffs also presented a memo that was dated April 6, 2005, which was marked exhibit A. Schuffman who had addressed the Memo to all DMH employees had sought to notify them of the introduction of a random drug test. The next part of the documents that the Plaintiff’s presented in Court is the DMH's protocol for the drug testing identified as Exhibit B.
Facts
The Missouri Department of Mental Health sought to adopt a policy that required it to conduct random drug tests for its employees. The Department wanted to implement the policy in May 2005 by subjecting employees to random selection for purposes of testing them. However, some of the employees felt offended by the new policy and expressed their objection to the policy arguing that it was not in line with the Constitution. Subsequently, the three employees Chester Jakubowicz, Glenda Werley, and Dianna Wallen sought a court order for a declaration that the new drug testing policy that the Department sought to introduce was unconstitutional therefore illegal. According to the Department, there was enough justification for the introduction of the policy because there was reasonable belief that the personnel were using illegal drugs, and because every employee in the department is a caregiver and a role model to the patients, it would be prudent to eradicate the vice through random testing. Evidence to support the assertions by the department included the use of illegal drugs by employees while working at the mental health facilities where mentally retarded patients were residing. It is important to note that Jakubowicz, Werley, and Wallen held the positions of Psychiatric Assistant II at Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center and Office Support Assistants at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center respectively. As such, the three Plaintiffs did not work at the facilities occupied by the mentally ill patients. Notably, the administrators were not able to cite any specific incidences or individuals they believed were taking illegal drugs, but they presented a testimony that they had received information from some members of the staff and family members that some of the employees were taking illegal drugs. Further, the Department argued that staff members at whatever capacity had an obligation to behave as role models towards every patient.
Issue
Whether the introduction of the drug testing policy interfered with the Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their Fourteenth Amendment right
Holding
Yes. The random drug testing infringed the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
Rule
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Reasoning
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution affords citizens the protection to all citizens against unreasonable searches. Then Court relied on the case of Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 613-14 (1989) where the court held that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to guard the dignity, security, and privacy of all persons against arbitrary and invasive conduct of certain government officers and those acting on their behalf. Further, the Court noted that urinary drug tests are searches that fall within the purview of the Fourth Amendment and would normally require a state agency or its officers to obtain a search warrant that is based on probable cause before carrying out the tests. Accordingly, the court was of the view that urine testing interfere with legitimate expectations of privacy, which the society recognizes as reasonable. However, the Court noted that in case of probable cause and individualized suspicion where a search by the government is founded on special needs, the Court might overlook the requirement of a warrant. In making this observation, the Court relied on the 1997 case of Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 313. As such, the Court observed that for a government entity like the DMH to allege “special need”, the court must weigh the conflicting private and public interests that every party advances. According to the Court, for the special need for drug testing to override the private interests, it must be sufficiently vital in order to suppress individual rights afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, the Court noted that the government agency has the burden of determining whether an employee is within the category of the special needs exemption to the Fourth Amendment. The Court determined that ‘Special need’ must be beyond the usual needs of the law enforcement that render probable cause and a warrant impossible.
In arriving at a decision, the Court considered the two justifications for the random testing by DMH separately. These justifications were safety of the patients and employees as role models of patients. Ultimately, the Court held that random testing for drugs was reasonable when subjected to employees responsible for the safety of patients, but observed that random testing was unconstitutional if carried out among the employees not directly responsible for caring for the patients. On the issue of employees as role models, the Court noted that this justification was undermined by the Department's admission that employees who would test positive would not face disciplinary action, except if they were to refuse treatment. In this regard, the Court demonstrated that the Defendant’s theory was such that a client of the Department would believe that it was condoning drug use among its employees.
With regard to the foregoing, the Court held that Dittemore had not succeeded in proving special need for the random drug tests that it sought to carry out among employees working at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center and Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center.
Disposition
Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction granted in part and denied in part. DMH is permanently enjoined from carrying out drug tests among the Plaintiffs randomly. Otherwise, the Motion of the Plaintiffs for Permanent Injunction is denied.
Dissent/Concurrence
N/A
Comments
The reasoning of the Court does not make sense. The fact that some employees working at a hospital are not responsible for the care of patients does not necessarily mean that they do not or cannot affect the wellbeing of the patients. The work that such employees carry out within such institutions has considerable effect on the patients, albeit indirectly. For instance, although an electrician does not have direct contact with the patients, working under the influence of drugs may cause them to mess about with electricity or make illegal connections that may cause damage to important equipments that healthcare practitioners use to improve the wellbeing of the patients. Ultimately, this case does not consistent with others I have read. In the Skinner case, the railroad unions were challenging the regulations by the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) that sought to mandate the Administration with the authority to conduct blood and urinary tests of the employees involved in accidents leading to injuries, death, and damage to property. T he Supreme Court noted that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all search and seizures, but only the ones that were not reasonable (Twomey 653). Accordingly, the Supreme Court in National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab determined that there were special needs in administering random drug testing of private or public employees as per the regulations of the federal administrative agency (Betts 1018).
Work Cited
Betts, Kenneth. Fourth Amendment suspicionless Urinalysis Testing: A Constitutionally
Reasonable Weapon In The Nation’s War on Drugs. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 80(4), 1990. Web. 26 May 2016. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6640&context=jclc
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association 489 U.S. 602 (1989). Web. 26 May 2016.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/602
Twomey, David. Labor and Employment Law: Text & Cases. Cengage Learning, 2012.
