Drug-Test Ruling Ends Long Battle in Glendale

Hailed by city governments but denounced by unions, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to let stand Glendale’s policy that all job applicants be tested for drugs ends, for now, an 11-year legal contest.

Glendale’s requirement that applicants for all municipal jobs submit to a drug test had passed muster with the California Supreme Court in January--a ruling that stands because of the Supreme Court’s action.

By declining to review the state decision, the federal high court has also allowed Glendale to drug test certain city employees seeking promotions, depending on the job’s risk level, among other factors.

While union leaders decried the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, many expressed hope that further challenges to Glendale’s drug-testing policy will be filed.

“The decision was probably not in the best interest of the employees,” said Zizette Ayad, president of the 900-member Glendale City Employees Union. “But the court did what it did, and right now, there’s nothing we can do. I hope there is something to challenge later, after we’ve read through this ruling.”

Many cities in the state watched the case closely and filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Glendale, said Joanne Speers, general counsel for the League of California Cities.

“It’s always hard to speak for all cities in the state, but basically, they are fairly comfortable with the state Supreme Court’s decision, which now stands,” she said. “Their primary concern was with the ability to do pre-employment testing, and they got it. They’re also comfortable with the standards the court used for pre-promotional testing.”

The California Supreme Court, in its January ruling, had modified lower-court rulings by saying that some city workers seeking promotions could be tested, but only in those cases in which the city could provide “sufficient justification to do so,” said Ron Braden, Glendale chief assistant city attorney.

Such justification, he said, included the risk level of a particular job and the danger it posed to others as well as the personal histories of the applicants.

U.S. Supreme Court justices, in a variety of cases, have upheld drug testing for railroad workers whose jobs affect public safety, for customs agents who enforce anti-drug laws, and for student athletes in public schools.

“I’m happy, you better believe it,” Braden said.

*

The legal case began when Glendale resident Lorraine Loder challenged a city policy launched in 1986 to detect drug abuse among city job applicants, claiming it was a violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--an unreasonable search.

Loder, a private attorney, was later joined in her challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s disappointing,” said Marvin Krakow, who argued the case for Loder and the ACLU. Krakow said he feared that the ruling could embolden other states to stiffen drug-testing requirements.

“The issue of employment drug testing has significance beyond California,” he said. “Because of its size, California has a lot of influence indirectly elsewhere. While this affects California, it has persuasive value outside the state.”

Although the case spanned more than a decade and reached the highest level of the state court system, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case is not a final or sure sign of anything, according to Krakow.

“When [the U.S. Supreme Court] denied review, it had no meaning other than the justices decided not to review it now,” Krakow said. “Someone could challenge the same issue next year and they might take it. All it means is that they didn’t want to address this issue at this time.”