Thomson v. Marsh, 88-2838
| Decision Date | 06 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2838,88-2838 |
| Citation | 884 F.2d 113 |
| Parties | , 4 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1445, 1989 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 28,702 Sandra M. THOMSON; George Stout, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John O. MARSH, Jr., Secretary of the Army; Major-General Charles F. Drenz, Commander, Brigadier Gen. Peter D. Hildalco, Commander, U.S. Army; Frank Carlucci, Secretary of Defense, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert V. Zener (John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Breckinridge L. Willcox, U.S. Atty., Leonard Schaitman, Washington, D.C., on brief), for defendants-appellants.
Lawrence S. Greenwald (Dana A. Reed, Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before WINTER, PHILLIPS, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents the question of whether the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits the United States Army from performing random drug tests on certain civilian employees at a chemical weapons plant. The district court held that such tests violated that Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. 682 F.Supp. 829. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of random drug tests in Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) and National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). In light of these decisions, we conclude that the tests at issue here do not violate the Fourth Amendment. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with directions to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs Sandra M. Thomson and George Stout are civilian employees of the Army who work at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Thomson is a research biochemist with the Army's Chemical Research Development Engineering Center (CRDEC). Stout is a pipefitter. Because Thomson and Stout both have access to areas at Aberdeen in which experiments are performed with highly lethal chemical warfare agents, they have received security clearances and been placed in the Army's Chemical Personnel Reliability Program (CPRP), a group consisting of employees whose work involves chemical weapons.
The Army requires that persons assigned to the CPRP submit to random drug tests, which it conducts in compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). An employee selected for testing gives a urine sample during the course of a work day at a collection site. The specimen is sent to a laboratory, where tests are conducted for evidence of illegal drugs. If the tests are positive and there is no legitimate medical explanation for the results, the employee may be subject to disciplinary action, including demotion or dismissal. Test results may not be used in a criminal prosecution of the employee unless he consents.
Thomson and Stout refused to submit to drug tests and filed suit in the district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court concluded that the Army program violated the Fourth Amendment and granted plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction. This appeal followed.
In Railway Labor Executives and Treasury Employees, the Supreme Court decided that random drug tests do not violate the Fourth Amendment in limited circumstances where important governmental interests outweigh individuals' expectations of privacy. In Treasury Employees, the Court applied this balancing test to uphold a Customs Service program conducted under the same HHS guidelines as those involved here. We think that these decisions, particularly Treasury Employees, control the outcome of this appeal. We hold that the governmental interest in safety at Aberdeen clearly outweighs plaintiffs' expectations of privacy, and that the drug tests at issue in this case do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
It is manifest that the government's interest in the safety of the workplace at Aberdeen is a compelling one. Like the railroad employees in Railway Labor Executives, Army employees whose work involves chemical weapons "discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Colorado Through Regents of University of Colorado v. Derdeyn
...who "have access to areas ... in which experiments are performed with highly lethal chemical warfare agents," Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113, 114 (4th Cir.1989) (per curiam); drivers, mechanics and attendants whose primary duty is the daily transportation of handicapped children on school b......
-
Whye v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc.
...may diminish privacy expectations even with respect to such personal searches." Id. at 671 (citation omitted). Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), also provides guidance. In that case, the Fourth Circuit found no Fourth Amendment violation in the Army's random urine......
-
Garrett v. Clarke
...political office because, in part, "those officials typically do not perform high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks"); Thomson v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113, 115 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that the government's interest in suspicionless drug testing of employees at a chemical weapons plant is comparable ......
-
Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
...610-615); civilian employees of chemical weapons plant who have access to areas in which experiments are performed (Thomson v. Marsh (4th Cir.1989) 884 F.2d 113, 114-115); drivers of and attendants on school buses for handicapped children (Jones v. Jenkins (D.C.Cir.1989) 878 F.2d 1476, 1477......