Sales Manager Sues Over Required Drug Test : Hosiery Supplier’s Exam Called ‘Worst, Most Repressive Policy Imaginable’

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a San Diego woman who was fired by an affiliate of Sara Lee Corp. after refusing to take a company-mandated drug test.

The suit was filed Monday in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of Sue Ryan, who worked as an area manager for Hanes Direct Store Delivery, a Sara Lee-owned company that distributes L’Eggs and other hosiery products to retail stores.

Ryan, 31, was fired Dec. 21--two weeks after she declined to submit to a random urine test requested by her supervisors. A 10-year veteran employee who supervised four district sales managers, Ryan said she objected to the test as an invasion of her constitutional right to privacy.

Lack of Trust Cited

“I thought the company trusted me and had confidence in me,” Ryan said. “The company’s drug program essentially said I was guilty until proven innocent.”

The lawsuit seeks Ryan’s reinstatement to her $35,000-a-year job, back pay, unspecified general and punitive damages, and a judicial declaration as to her constitutional rights in face of the testing program.

Hanes Direct Delivery referred all calls about the lawsuit to Sara Lee, which is based in Maryland. Officials there could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Elizabeth Schulman, a volunteer attorney handling the case for the ACLU, said Sara Lee’s drug testing system is “the worst, most repressive policy imaginable.” Schulman, who said the program violated her client’s right to privacy under the California Constitution, praised Ryan for being “willing to take a stand for what she believes in.”

According to the lawsuit, Sara Lee first adopted a “substance abuse policy” in July and initially limited random screening to applicants and to employees in “safety-sensitive” positions. Compliance with the program was mandatory, and failure to participate and sign forms declaring the test to be voluntary was punishable by termination, the lawsuit said.

In September, Ryan was notified that the list of “safety-sensitive” jobs--defined as those that involve risk of injury or property damage in the event of an accident--now included hers. Ryan protested that her job involved no risk to herself or others and she should not be subjected to testing, but company officials “turned a cold shoulder,” Schulman said.

Appointment Made, Canceled

On Dec. 7, Ryan’s supervisor told her to make an appointment with the company’s doctor for a drug test, the lawsuit alleges. Ryan made arrangements to do so on Dec. 8, but canceled the appointment after deciding that it violated her rights and “the company had no compelling reason to require her to participate in a random drug testing program.”

Two weeks later Ryan was offered a “last chance” offer to take the test. When she declined, she was fired, the lawsuit alleges.

Linda Hills, executive director of the ACLU in San Diego, said Ryan’s firing was particularly abhorrent because “she had never given her employer over the course of 10 years any reason to believe she was a drug user.”

Hills said the ACLU opposes indiscriminate urine testing because it treats the innocent and the guilty alike and forces workers who are not suspected of drug use to submit to the “degrading and intrusive” procedure.

Although Ryan said she is hopeful “at this point” of winning her job back, her primary goal is to persuade the company to change its drug testing policy.

“I first and foremost hope the policy is rewritten so nobody will be tested unless there is reasonable suspicion that they’re on drugs,” Ryan said. “I’ve been with the company for 10 years and this was the first policy presented to me that I just couldn’t support.”

Schulman said most legal challenges to drug testing programs to date have focused on public and quasi-public bodies. Cities, police departments and utilities are among entities in Southern California that have been hit with lawsuits by labor unions and individual employees opposing random screening.

But the San Diego case is not the first challenge to a private company’s policy. In late 1986, for example, an employee at a 3M plant in Camarillo sued the company after he was suspended for refusing to take a mandatory drug test. When a Ventura County Superior Court judge issued an injunction temporarily barring further testing, 3M officials decided to scrap the random screening policy. The firm continues to test suspected drug users and job applicants.