COURT LETS INDIANA SCHOOLS' DRUG TESTS STAND

The Supreme Court yesterday let an Indiana high school continue
requiring students to take drug tests if they want to participate
inextracurricular activities, even if they are notsuspected of using
drugs.

The justices, on the first day of their new term, refused to take up
an appeal of a lower ruling that said schools may force students to
provide urine samples under monitored conditions as a way of deterring
illegal drugs. Lawyers for parents and students who had protested the
ruling said it "represents a significant and unwarranted erosion of"
students' privacy rights and protection against unreasonable searches.
But school officials in Rush County, Ind., called the program a
reasonable, effective way to curb drug use, particularly before it
reaches epidemic proportions.

The high court rejected the appeal without comment, and while the
denial sets no national precedent, civil libertarians said the action
would embolden public schools to step up the wide-scale use of drug
tests.

"This is an issue being faced by school districts all over the
country," said Kenneth J. Falk of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
"I certainly think schools now will go as far as the [Rush County
policy] goes. But more guidance is needed from the court" on a
national standard.

When the Supreme Court last ruled on student drug testing, in 1995, it
permitted an Oregon drug testing policy that was confined to student
athletes. The Indiana policy applies not only to sports activities but
to everything from the school Library Club to the Future Farmers of
America.

All told, the justices acted on more than 1,600 appeals that had been
filed during their summer recess. But the drug testing case was one of
the most closely watched because it arises from nationwide efforts by
schools to steer students away from drugs, in part through increased
urinalysis testing. Such policies, particularly when used on students
not suspected of drug use, invoke Fourth Amendment protections against
unreasonable searches, and parents and students have repeatedly
challenged the tests in courts.

In the Rush County schools case, William P. and Diana J. Todd sued the
school district on behalf of their son, William Matthew, a freshman
who volunteered to videotape the football team at after-school events.

In rejecting the Todds' challenge to the mandatory drug testing, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois,
Indiana and Wisconsin, said, "[S]uccessful extracurricular activities
require healthy students." The court's three-judge panel said the
program was similar enough to the Oregon athletes' drug-testing
requirement that the Supreme Court upheld in 1995.

The full 7th Circuit refused to hear the case, with dissenting
justices asserting that "the broad-brushed reading of" the high
court's 1995 ruling "takes us a long way toward condoning drug-testing
in the general school population."

In another school's case, the justices rejected an appeal by a North
Carolina drama teacher who had been disciplined by a school board for
putting on a controversial play depicting a dysfunctional family.

Separately yesterday, the justices announced they will hear a new case
testing how easy it should be for disabled workers to sue their
employers for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
when the workers also receive Social Security disability benefits. A
federal appeals court ruled that if a worker receives disability
benefits, a judge should presume that the worker is barred from
claiming she is a "qualified individual with a disability" and
entitled to sue an employer for bias.

The case involves a woman named Carolyn Cleveland, who worked for
Policy Management Systems Corp. until she suffered a stroke and had
trouble speaking. Cleveland applied for Social Security disability
benefits, but after a few months she was able to return to work. She
notified the Social Security Administration of her changed condition.
Cleveland claimed the company failed to make several accommodations,
including computer training, to help her do her job. Finally, she was
fired.

She reapplied for benefits and also sued the company for
discrimination. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against
Cleveland, pointing out the inconsistency in a person saying they are
totally disabled and unable to work, and then saying they are able to
perform the essential functions of a job if only the proper
accommodations are made. For those who have once claimed to be totally
disabled, the court said, the bar for making a claim under the ADA
should be higher.

That ruling conflicts with more lenient standards set by other courts,
and the justices will resolve the split in the case of Cleveland v.
Policy Management Systems Corp.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry