Drug Testing Case Summary

Another case that addresses drug testing is Aubrey v. School Board of Lafayette Parish (1998). In this case we are looking at the Fourth Amendment rights of employees. Aubrey was a custodian at an elementary school. In December 1992 the board adopted an Employee Drug Testing Policy stating all "safety sensitive" employees are subject to random selection and drug testing each year. In August of 1993, Aubrey attended and in-service where the y policy was dispersed and reviewed. On September 28, 1994, Aubrey and fourteen other employees undergo drug testing through urinalysis screening. Aubrey tested positive for a chemical that is known to be found in marijuana. In lieu of termination, the Board recommended that Aubrey attend a substance abuse program.
Aubrey denied that he had used the illegal substance and sought an order barring the Board requiring him to continue the attendance of the substance abuse program or from firing him.
The court granted the order and stated that Aubrey required to periodic drug testing. Another case involving drug testing is Tannahill v. Lockney Independent School District (2001). Lockney is an independent school district in the State of Texas. Tannahill was a sixth-grade student at the time. The District maintained a "Reasonable Suspicion Drug Testing Policy" (Tannahill v. Lockney Independent School District, 2001) for its students, stating that students are required to submit to drug or alcohol testing if a staff member has reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There was also a voluntary drug testing policy in place. Even though the District had both of these policies in place, there was no student
ever tested because of them. In September 1997 the community became concerned with school drug problems. With the support of the community and school district, a new policy was approved on December 16, 1999. The new policy started in February 2000. The new policy declared that all students and their parents would sign a consent form agreeing to be a part of the drug testing program. If any student and/or parent refused to sign the consent it was to be understood that result of the test would be positive. With a positive test the student would be subject to consequences set forth in student handbook and the Student Code of Conduct. If a parent and/or student continued to refuse that their child be tested, then the results would continue to be considered that of a positive test and additional punishments would take place. Tannahill believe that his Fourth Amendment rights were compromised because of the drug testing policy. The Court found that the District failed to demonstrate adequate special needs to justify the drug testing.