COURT RULING LIMITS EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING

SAN FRANCISCO - A city can't require all job applicants to be tested for
narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would
be dangerous, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against
the city of Woodburn, Ore., which argued it was entitled to maintain a
drug-free workplace by requiring job candidates to be screened for
drugs and alcohol.

The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page
at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and
alcohol test. A federal judge ruled the policy unconstitutional and
awarded Lanier $12,400 in damages and $44,000 in legal fees, her
lawyer said.

The appeals court said Thursday that the judge's ruling went too far,
because the city may be able to justify drug-testing of applicants for
some jobs. But the court found no basis to test applicants for library
positions.

Federal courts have upheld mandatory drug screening for jobs in which
performance "may pose a great danger to the public," the appeals
judges said. They cited Supreme Court rulings allowing drug testing of
railroad crews after accidents and of customs agents who search others
for illegal drugs.

Another appeals court has upheld drug testing of applicants to teach
school in Tennessee, noting teachers' duty to look after students'
well-being.

But the Ninth Circuit court said Woodburn's rationale for universal
screening - that drug use is a serious social problem affecting the
performance of any job - was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1997
when it struck down Georgia's requirement that all candidates for
public office undergo narcotics testing to show their commitment to
the war on drugs.

The Supreme Court said the state was requiring testing for purely
symbolic reasons, which was not enough to avoid the constitutional
requirement that a search warrant be based on evidence of wrongdoing.

The same reasoning applies to a city's drug testing of applicants for
everyday jobs with no connection to safety or security, Judge Pamela
Rymer said in the 3-0 ruling.