SUPREME COURT GIVES ARBITRATION A BOOST, LIMITS DRUG SEARCHES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court boosted arbitration as a way to settle
workplace disputes by ruling unanimously that courts can enforce an
arbitrator's decision to reinstate a truck driver who twice failed drug tests.

In a separate case, the high court decided 6-3 to strike down the use of
random roadblocks to catch drug criminals, saying the roadblocks violated
the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the arbitration case, the court dealt a defeat to Eastern Associated
Coal Co., which had argued that it had the right to fire James Smith as a
matter of public policy and safety under U.S. Transportation Department
regulations after he twice tested positive for marijuana use. But Justice
Stephen Breyer, writing the unanimous opinion, said that the arbitrator's
rejection of that argument "violates no specific provision of any law or
regulation."

The case is one of three arbitration cases the justices agreed to take up
this term. While Tuesday's decision protects the worker's rights, the other
two cases involve the controversial issue of binding arbitration in
consumer contracts. Lawyers for consumers charge that such contracts --
used in a wide variety of transactions, from credit cards to video-rental
agreements -- are often buried in the contract's small print and deprive
buyers of their right to resolve disputes in court. Businesses tend to
favor these binding-arbitration agreements because they can resolve cases
quickly and without the uncertainty and expense often involved in jury trials.

The court noted that the arbitration agreement between Eastern and the
United Mine Workers of America specifies that the company must show "just
cause" in order to fire an employee. The high court said that when both
sides agreed to resolve such disputes through arbitration, "they granted to
the arbitrator the authority to interpret the meaning of their contract
language," including "just cause."

Following the two failed drug tests, the arbitrator imposed penalties,
including suspensions without pay, but concluded that there wasn't just
cause to fire him. Eastern took its case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, which held that Mr. Smith's conditional
reinstatement didn't violate Transportation Department rules, and hence
there wasn't just cause to fire him. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Va., agreed.

The Supreme Court said that the arbitrator's decision "does not condone
Smith's conduct," but that the fact that he failed two drug tests "is not
sufficient."

(Eastern vs. United Mine Workers)

The roadblock case relates to a 1998 vehicle-checkpoint program set up in
Indianapolis, under which motorists were stopped briefly while a
drug-sniffing dog was led around their autos. The city conducted six such
roadblocks between August and November 1998, stopping 1,161 vehicles and
arresting 104 motorists. Of that total, 55 were arrested for drug-related
crimes. Two of the motorists stopped brought a lawsuit against the city.

Writing for the court's majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the high
court has upheld such checkpoints to combat drunk driving and illegal
immigration. But, she said, "we have never approved a checkpoint program
whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.''

In a dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Clarence
Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said the checkpoints "effectively serve the
state's legitimate interests ... and they only minimally intrude upon the
privacy of the motorists."

(Indianapolis vs. Edmond, et al.)