A LEGAL VICTORY FEW SHOULD CHEER

Roughly four years ago, Janet Lynn Lanier was offered a job with the
Woodburn Public Library. Then, she was asked to do something so
unconscionable, so unthinkable, so unconstitutional that we hesitate
to mention it in a family newspaper.

She was asked to take a drug test.

When Lanier said "no way," the library withdrew its job
offer.

Lanier then sued, eventually prevailing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals. In cases like Lanier's, said the court, mandatory drug
testing violates the state and federal constitutions, which protect
people from unreasonable searches.

The Oregon branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which
represented Lanier, immediately declared the decision an important win
for would-be government employees.

We suppose this is true, especially for those with substance-abuse
problems.

But Lanier and her legal team shouldn't expect taxpayers and
government institutions to reach for the victory cake.

The 9th Circuit did emphasize -- thank goodness -- that government
entities may require pre-employment drug tests under certain
circumstances. Thus, people who want to operate heavy machinery, drive
school buses, teach children or enforce the law should keep away from
the hooch and the hookah when applying for employment. Without a
"special need" like ensuring public safety, however, government has no
business handing a job applicant a plastic cup and violating her
constitutional right to privacy.

In this light, Woodburn's desire to test Lanier could seem a little
silly. She applied to be a page, a position that would have required
her to collect books from a book drop and reshelve them. Occasionally,
the court noted, Lanier might have sat at a desk in the youth services
area. Short of getting stoned and running over an unsuspecting toddler
with the book cart, it's virtually impossible to imagine how Lanier
could have endangered anyone.

So it's hard not to laugh at Woodburn's contention that all library
positions, including those of pages, are safety-related.

But there's another reason employers, public and private, test
applicants. It's a reason courts might consider too trivial to
counterbalance applicants' privacy rights, but it's one that matters a
great deal to the people handing out the paychecks.

Employers test people, in part, because they want to screen out those
who are likely to perform badly and cost them money, as people with
substance-abuse problems tend to do. If a person can't keep herself
drug-free when she's applying for a job -- when, presumably, she's on
her best behavior -- you can be sure she's not going to do it when
she's on the payroll. Sure, employers can ask for a drug test when
they suspect an employee's stoned or drunk.

But it's much easier -- and cheaper -- not to hire people with such
problems in the first place.

Civil-liberties purists might not care about the consequences, but
important public institutions like libraries certainly will.
Inevitably, they'll end up hiring -- and firing -- more people with
substance abuse problems.

And beyond that, they could well suffer an erosion of support from
taxpayers who resent the elimination of an important screening tool --
a tool, by the way, that private companies may still use. Some victory.