Fed court allows some state drug tests

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A federal judge upheld random drug testing for some Missouri Department of Mental Health employees, but ruled Tuesday that others who challenged the policy should be exempt.

The lawsuit had sought to strike down the random testing policy, begun in May 2005, as an unconstitutional violation of 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

But U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey refused to issue such a sweeping decision.

Instead, Laughrey wrote that the state had shown a special need for the random drug testing at its habilitation centers for people with mental and developmental disabilities. She issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the policy against the three plaintiffs, who worked at other locations, but otherwise denied an injunction.

Columbia attorney Dan Viets, who filed the lawsuit, said he believed the injunction also would apply to other department employees who, like the plaintiffs, did not work at habilitation centers.

"The effect is it will stop the random drug testing for anyone in a similar situation as the plaintiffs in this case," said Viets, a Columbia attorney for the Missouri chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws. "If it were not so, every employee would have to sue to establish his or her constitutional rights, and that's clearly not the case,"

Department spokesman Bob Bax said the ruling clearly applies to the three people who sued, but said the general drug testing policy was upheld. Beyond that, "we're reviewing the decision to determine what impact it will have on our policy and its application," he said.

"The drug policy is something that we feel is important," Bax added, "because we want to do everything we can to ensure the safety of our clients."

Under the policy, random drug tests are performed on a sample of 10 percent of employees annually from each facility and section within the department. The Mental Health Department employs more than 9,000 people, about 3,200 of whom work at habilitation centers.

A 2005 memo from the department director to employees said the random drug testing policy "is not designed to 'catch' employees involved in illegal acts. It merely helps to ensure a safe and secure environment for employees and that we are providing the best care possible to those we serve."

The judge said the safety reasoning was appropriate for habilitation centers, where employees work in a closed environment with patients, making it difficult for administrators to supervise them on a regular basis. Laughrey said the department also had shown a pattern of drug abuse by habilitation employees, including by some administrative employees, and has an interest in preventing injuries to "this vulnerable group" of patients.

But none of the plaintiffs worked at those centers. One was employed at the Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center and two worked at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center. The judge said there was no evidence that the plaintiffs worked in secure areas at those facilities, had access to drugs or had direct responsibility for patient care.

But Laughrey rejected the department's claim that the random drug tests were necessary to ensure employees presented a good role model to patients. She noted there are no similar random tests for alcohol use and eating disorders -- things that also could affect employees' ability to be a role model.