Librarian drug tests banned

At long last, the Ninth Circuit has issued a ruling that actually makes sense. Usually this federal appeals court that covers the West Coast is a particularly bigheaded outpost of Bushism (conservative complaints notwithstanding). But now they've laid a long-overdue smackdown against one of the Bushists' key policy initiatives.

In Woodburn, Oregon, a job offer for a librarian was withdrawn when the applicant refused to take a drug and alcohol test. The applicant then sued the city over this policy - and won. The city had the nerve to appeal, and now the Ninth Circuit has ruled that while the city can justify drug tests for some positions, it can't test librarians or most other employees. The court ruled that if drug tests are required, the city has to show why drug use "may pose a great danger to the public." In other words, drug tests can only be imposed for occupations like pilots, commercial drivers, or miners.

The ruling against employee meddling in workers' lives is legally binding and unambiguous (at least for most jobs).

I guess the library thought some drug-addled librarian might do something really horrible like mistype the title of the Sue Grafton novel 'C Is For Corpse' as 'C Is For Cookie' and accidentally file it in the children's section. Heaven forfend! At least now employers' efforts to keep workers in suspended animation when they're away from work have been severely crimped.

(Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/13/BA1FVJK4K.DTL)