CITY OF SEATTLE'S DRUG TESTING UPHELD

The city of Seattle can require drug screening of applicants for some
safety-related jobs, a judge has ruled in rejecting a challenge to the
nearly 3-year-old policy.

It is the first court decision on the issue since the American Civil
Liberties Union of Washington state filed a lawsuit in 1997 charging that
mandatory pre-employment drug testing by the city is an invasion of privacy.

Under the city's present policy, about 100 applicants a month are screened
for illegal drugs in their urine.

But the Jan. 26 ruling by King County Superior Court Judge R. Joseph Wesley
is not an end of the battle by those opposed to the policy, who include
former Mayor Charles Royer and former Councilman Charlie Chong.

The ACLU will appeal the ruling, said its spokesman, Doug Honig.

"One shouldn't have to pee in a cup to get a job with the city when there
is no evidence that the individual has any problem with drug abuse," Honig
said.

The city disagrees.

Evidence shows drug testing is needed because some people in the job market
have drug problems that may affect their ability to perform their jobs
safely, said Assistant City Attorney Fritz Wollett.

Widespread literature and studies describe the impact of drug use in the
workplace, the potential safety threat to the drug users themselves as well
as their coworkers, he said.

And drug-using employees more likely are absent and have worker's
compensation claims, he said.

The city, like many corporate employers, thinks drug testing is an
effective and efficient way of screening out those potential problems.

Honig countered that there are better ways that are less intrusive on
privacy rights. For example, the city could simply check an applicant's
references with previous employers.

Even though the ACLU lost this round of the legal battle, Honig said, "The
city has drastically cut back on its program in response to the lawsuit on
two different occasions."

It was in July 1996 that the city began requiring a urine sample from all
applicants to test for marijuana, cocaine, pcp, amphetamines and opiates.
In the first 18 months of the policy, it tested 2,365 applicants, and 120
failed.

In November 1997, the council limited testing to those in public safety,
working with dangerous substances, performing hazardous physical
activities, operating vehicles or heavy machinery, directly handling money
or working with minors.

Last year, the council exempted handling money and working with minors.

In the first three quarters of 1998, the city tested 877 applicants; 43
failed.

In his ruling, Wesley said, "The city has carefully crafted a program
significantly tailored to address specific, documented concerns over drug
use by potential employees."

But Honig disagrees, saying that many of the categories of jobs are too vague.

The ACLU does not challenge the drug-screening of applicants for jobs that
require commercial drivers licenses, which is federally mandated, or of
those seeking to become police officers or firefighters, Honig said.

He complains, however, that the city cannot clearly define the jobs
affected by the less precise categories.

Wollett said that when city departments have a job vacancy, they determine
whether the position fits into the safety-related categories requiring drug
screening. Then the job posting notes that an applicant must pass a drug
test to get the job.