Middlebrooks v. Wayne County
| Decision Date | 23 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 96078,No. 13,96086,96090,D,13 |
| Citation | 521 N.W.2d 774,446 Mich. 151 |
| Parties | , 9 IER Cases 1513 Segrett MIDDLEBROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE COUNTY, Maybury Medical Clinics, Inc., Bioanalytical Procedures, Inc., Perry Health Net Laboratory Services, Inc., and BCP Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Calendarecember Term 1993. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
The question presented is whether a person who applies to Wayne County for a permanent position that involves driving heavy equipment near and on public highways 1 may, consistent with the Search and Seizure Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, be required to submit to urinalysis testing.
The permanent position involves operation of heavy equipment that might result in serious injury from even a "momentary lapse of attention" characteristic of illegal drug use. 2
We find that, as a result of his application for such a position with a governmental agency, Middlebrooks had a reduced expectation of privacy in not being subjected to urinalysis drug screening by the government.
We conclude that urinalysis testing in connection with an application for this permanent position with a governmental agency is not violative of the Search and Seizure Clause, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Segrett Middlebrooks was a seasonal service worker with Wayne County from May, 1984, until November, 1984. 3 Middlebrooks applied in October, 1984, for a permanent position as a general service worker or laborer. The tasks he would perform as a permanent employee would be the same as those he performed as a seasonal employee, including:
. operation of saws, wood chippers (used to grind brush into wood chips), and a front-end loader on Wayne County Road Commission premises;
. operation of a riding lawn mower on highway medians and embankments;
. driving trucks, including dump trucks carrying equipment and stake trucks and other equipment, from work sites to repair facilities used by the road commission.
Middlebrooks submitted to a preemployment physical on November 1, 1984, conducted by Maybury Medical, which included urinalysis testing for controlled substances. 4 The urinalysis test was "positive for opiates and cocaine," and it was determined that he was "[n]ot qualified for the position sought."
Middlebrooks had completed and signed a "Consent Form and Questionnaire" that indicated he had not taken any prescription medication within the past month or any nonprescription medication within the last ninety-six hours, and which provided that he "understand[s] that the results of this examination will be reported to the agency that referred me for the tests."
Middlebrooks had also signed a "Medical Examination" form that indicated he was not "taking any medication at the present time." He acknowledged a "habit" of tobacco, 5 and did "certify that the above information is true and agree and understand any misstatement of material facts contained in this form may cause forfeiture of all my rights to employment with the County of Wayne."
Middlebrooks began performing the tasks of a permanent general service worker on November 9, 1984, as a "provisional employee[ ] subject to passing the physical including the drug screen, and subject to later passing a civil service examination." He was discharged on November 20, 1984, for failure to pass a physical examination. 6
Middlebrooks commenced this action 7 against Wayne County, Maybury Medical, and Bioanalytical Procedures, alleging violations of his rights, under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and of due process of law, both substantive and procedural, and privacy, along with violations of analogous rights under the Michigan Constitution. Middlebrooks also claimed violations of the Rehabilitation Act, 8 the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, 9 the Elliott- Larsen Civil Rights Act, 10 and breach of an implied contract, negligence, and violation of common-law privacy.
The circuit court granted summary disposition for Wayne County, Maybury Medical, and Bioanalytical Procedures on all counts, on the ground that urinalysis testing is permitted under the Fourth Amendment where the position involves the operation of heavy machinery. 11
The Court of Appeals reversed on Middlebrooks' § 1983 and Fourth Amendment claims against Wayne County, and remanded the case to determine whether Middlebrooks stated a § 1983 claim against Maybury Medical and Bioanalytical Procedures, and to determine Middlebrooks' damages. The Court of Appeals ruled that "Wayne County failed to establish that its interest was sufficient to overcome plaintiff's privacy expectations," and concluded that the urinalysis test was unreasonable as a matter of law. 12 The permanent position did not involve "any unusual degree of danger" or a risk that was "significant or ... special." Middlebrooks would not have been required to carry passengers or security-sensitive materials, 13 or to operate heavy equipment involving great risk of harm to others. 14 General laborers are not "traditionally highly regulated." 15
This Court granted leave to appeal "limited to whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the urinalysis drug testing was unconstitutional as a matter of law, 508 N.W.2d 507." 16
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. RLEA 17 that mandatory urinalysis testing is a search under the Fourth Amendment, 18 but that such a search will survive constitutional scrutiny, in the absence of a warrant or individualized suspicion, if the "important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion" outweighs the "privacy interests implicated by the search...." 19
The Court upheld Federal Railroad Administration regulations providing for mandatory urinalysis testing of railroad employees, without warrants or individualized suspicion, when the employee was involved in a train accident, or violation of certain safety rules. The Court said that the governmental interest was "compelling":
Employees subject to the tests discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences. Much like persons who have routine access to dangerous nuclear power facilities, employees who are subject to testing under the FRA regulations can cause great human loss before any signs of impairment become noticeable to supervisors or others. 20 [Citations omitted.]
The Court also said that the privacy expectations of employees were "diminished" through "their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety, a goal dependent, in substantial part, on the health and fitness of covered employees." 21 The reason for the pervasive regulation is "obvious": 22
In NTEU v. Von Raab, 23 decided the same day as Skinner, the Court employed the balancing analysis announced in Skinner to affirm the validity, under the Fourth Amendment, of United States Customs Service regulations requiring urinalysis testing of employees seeking transfer or promotion to positions involving drug interdiction or the carrying of firearms. The Court said that it
agree[d] with the Government that the public should not bear the risk that employees who may suffer from impaired perception and judgment will be promoted to positions where they may need to employ deadly force. 24
United States district and circuit courts of appeals interpreting Skinner and Von Raab have generally held that positions that require operation of heavy machinery or motor vehicles involve "duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences." 25 Other federal courts have suggested that positions that require operation of motor vehicles would not be "fraught with such risks of injury to others" under the rationale of Skinner and Von Raab where the risk is no greater than the risk of "even a momentarylapse of attention" by a citizen operating a motor vehicle. 26
Skinner and Von Raab have also been interpreted to permit urinalysis testing of applicants for positions that involve "duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences." 27
Pursuant to the analysis of the federal cases interpreting Skinner and Von Raab, we conclude that dismissal of Middlebrooks' claims under the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment and § 1983 was appropriate. Operation of a riding lawn mower, especially on highway medians and embankments, and driving front-end loaders, trucks, and other equipment between a work site and repair facility, might result in serious injury from "momentary lapse[s] of attention" characteristic of illegal drug use. 28 Middlebrooks had a reduced expectation of privacy in not being subjected to urinalysis drug screening by the government as a result of his application for a position with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Farish v. Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev.
-
Cox v. BOARD OF HOSPITAL MANAGERS, Docket No. 205025.
... ... Middlebrooks v. Wayne Co., 446 Mich. 151, 166, n. 41, [521 N.W.2d 774] (1994) ." Cox, supra at 859-860 ... Wayne County has not claimed that this Court should decline to reach the Michigan constitutional issue because ... ...
-
Meisner Law Grp. PC v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n
...or tribunal." Boardman v. Dep’t of State Police , 243 Mich.App. 351, 358, 622 N.W.2d 97 (2000), citing Middlebrooks v. Wayne Co. , 446 Mich. 151, 166 n. 41, 521 N.W.2d 774 (1994). But while alternative grounds to affirm may be considered, affirming the circuit court on the alternative groun......
-
Loder v. City of Glendale
... ... De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Stephen R. Morris, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Cristina L. Sierra, ... & Mary L.Rev. 47, 90; see also Note, Middlebrooks v. Wayne County: Does Governmentally Imposed Preemployment Drug Testing Dispose of Constitutional ... ...