DRUG TEST BIASED AGAINST BLACKS, 7 EX-OFFICERS ALLEGE

Seven former Boston police officers, all African-Americans who were fired
after testing positive for cocaine in drug tests using samples of their
hair, sued the police department yesterday, alleging the screening
technique is biased against African-Americans.

Rheba Rutkowski, an attorney at Bingham McCutchen who represents the former
officers, said scientific literature indicates that the texture of
African-American hair as well as the hair products they use could skew
the results of a hair test. She also said hair tests are easier to pass if
an employee has light hair, and that stray molecules can bind to
African-American hair, altering the results.

"African-American hair is different from white hair because, among other
things, it is coarser and thicker," Rutkowski said. "In fact, those
properties make it far more likely to yield a false positive on a hair test
than white hair." Officer Michael McCarthy, a Boston Police Department
spokesman, said the department had not been notified of the lawsuit and
could not comment on the allegations. But McCarthy said the department
initiated the drug test in 1999 after "extensive negotiations with the
police unions. The unions had notice at that time if they wanted to raise
an issue."

The test is an annual mandatory test given a month before each police
officer's birthday. The mandatory hair test replaced a urine test. If
officers fail the yearly hair test, they can agree to enter a drug
rehabilitation program and are then subject to random urine tests. Several
of the plaintiffs refused to participate in a rehab program.

The company that conducts the drug tests for the department, Psychemedics
Corp. in Acton, said it has had no complaints from any of its hundreds of
clients. The idea that "drugs can get into your hair because of your race
is a ridiculous concept," said Bill Thistle, senior vice president. The
public and private sector have increasingly used hair samples for drug
tests, but they have drawn some criticism. Last year the Transportation
Department and the Pentagon said they would not use hair, saliva or sweat
tests to test federal workers for drugs because they were concerned
about fairness. Hair is typically clipped at an occupational medical
center or collection site such as the workplace, placed in a container,
sealed and shipped to a lab, where it is liquefied and tested for
substances the body produces while processing drugs. Test results are
usually returned in 48 hours. Employers are turning to hair tests instead
of urine tests because of a growing number of products that can mask or
invalidate urine test results. The products, often sold on the Internet,
have names like Clear Choice and Urine Luck. The hair test cannot be
altered, supporters say. When a person ingests drugs the substances travel
through the bloodstream and accumulate in the hair, Psychemedics' Thistle
said. Once there, the drug traces cannot be removed by shampoos, he said.
They remain in the hair follicle for months, becoming incorporated in the
hair strand.

Thistle said the test is "extremely accurate." He said the company has
various hair tests for marijuana, cocaine, and opiates as well as PCP and
all have been cleared by the Federal Drug Administration. The company also
tests officers in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Nadine Cohen, an attorney at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law in Boston who also represents the plaintiffs, said the police
department has been using a "scientifically unreliable test and a racially
biased test" to make decisions about the employment of police officers. The
seven officers were fired in 2002, 2003, or 2004 after testing positive for
cocaine in the department's yearly mandatory hair screening. Rutkowski
said that after they failed that test, the officers sought independent
tests at their own expense and the results were negative for drugs. "Some
plaintiffs actually walked into Psychemedics and got independent tests
there, and the results were negative," she said. "So, some tested both
negative and positive on the same day at the same lab," But the police
department would not accept the new findings, Rutkowski said. In addition
to the former officers, an African-American job applicant and the
Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, are part of
the suit against the department.

The job applicant, Claraise Bristow, 40, of Boston, was not hired for a
position as a 911 operator in December 2002 after testing positive. Under
the department's rules, applicants must submit to a drug test before they
are hired. The suit was filed in Suffolk Superior Court and it also names
the City of Boston. The plaintiffs want their jobs back and to "clear their
names," Rutkowski said. "They also want compensation for everything they
have lost, including damages for having lost their reputations. They also
want this practice to stop." One of the officers, Shawn Harris, 36, of
Boston, had worked for the Boston Police Department for more than three
years when he lost his job in April 2003 after testing positive for cocaine.

He said that 48 hours after the police test came back positive he went to a
diagnostics center in Cambridge and took another test at his own expense.
That hair test came back negative. He said he brought those results to the
police department, but it would not consider them.

Harris and five other plaintiffs refused to sign a sheet requiring that
they participate in a rehabilitation program and take random drug tests to
remain on the force. Another officer signed the form so as to keep his
job, but was fired after he tested positive at a later date.

"I refused to sign," said Harris. "I refused to say I was a drug abuser
because I do not use drugs. That's why I was terminated." Angela
Williams-Mitchell, 48, president of the Massachusetts Association of
Minority Law Enforcement Officers, which has more than 350 members, said
her members have complained about the test over the years. Many who have
tested positive signed the police department sheet admitting wrongdoing and
agreed to rehabilitation because they could not afford to lose their jobs,
she said. "This has been a problem from the time hair testing began,"
Williams-Mitchell said.

The other plaintiffs are Ronnie Jones, 49; Richard Beckers, 44; Walter R.
Robinson, 39; William E. Bridgeforth, 49; Eugene Wade, 55; and George C.
Downing Jr., 34. Several have left the state to look for other work, the
lawyers said.