GBA 335 Admin and Personnel Law
Dr. Elias Paulson
December 13, 2015
Case Brief 2
Jakubowicz v. Dittemore, (W.D. MO.2006)
Before the arranged date for this trial, both parties informed the United States District Court and requested to submit their evidence to the Court in writing. This included dispositions from Felix T. Vincenz, the Director of Facility Operations for DMH, and Linda Roebuck, the Deputy Director of DMH. Stipulations from both parties were also submitted. The plaintiffs submitted a memo that was dated on April 6, 2005, from Schuffman to all employees informing them of the random drug testing program and the DMH's protocol for the drug testing.
Missouri Department of Mental Health adopted a policy calling for the random drug testing of all of its employees. Three employees objected to the policy and sought a court order declaring it unconstitutional as applied to them. ...view middle of the document...
The department also claimed that the need for its staff to act as role models applied to all positions, as well as to both in-patient and out-patient treatment
Whether the random drug testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment rights of these employees.
The court emphasized that in a case where drug testing occurs absent individualized suspicion of drug use, it is the public employer that bears the burden of proving the existence of a special need to test. The court agreed that there was special need to randomly drug test in the department’s habilitation centers insofar as the mentally retarded clients are especially vulnerable, a specific pattern of drug abuse existed, and other efforts to keep illegal drugs out of the facilities had failed. However none of the plaintiffs worked at one of these facilities. There was no evidence of a similar drug problem where the plaintiffs worked. Nor was it clear that the plaintiffs all had responsibility for patient care, particularly the two Office Support Assistants. The court was not persuaded by the role model argument. There was no evidence to support the claim that drug addicts being treated by the agency would be able to detect that staff were using drugs and would conclude that the agency wasn’t really serious about fighting drugs. DMH’s decision to subject the Plaintiffs to random drug tests is nothing more than a gesture or symbol that DMH does not approve illegal drug use.
WestLaw. (2011). West Law Next. Retrieved Nov 15, 2015, from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/Document/Ic3917e32808611e089b3e4fa6356f33d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad60402000001510d970b40046efe1f%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIc3917e32808611e089b3e4fa6356f33d%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=7366804ecb0bc19e0a4a1a5471604df3&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=b510cfd42b2fe4f2983266e4199f2c6f&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29