Latest Headlines
- Five WaWa Stores In The Works For Escambia County. Here’s The List.
- Scattered Storms Likely Again Today
- Motorcyclist Critical After Jacks Branch Road Crash
- FDOT Plans Traffic Shift Thursday In Century Highway 29 Construction Zone
- Molino Man Charged With Throwing Object, Breaking Windshield Of Passing Car
- North Escambia Athletes Place In USA Volleyball Beach National Championships
- Santa Rosa Sheriff Issues Contractor Fraud Alert After Arrest
- Escambia Man Gets 10 Years On Firearms And Financial Racketeering Charges
- New Name, Same Fish: Largemouth Bass Are Now Florida Bass
- ECUA Considering Water, Sewer And Sanitation Rate Increases
Scott, State Workers Still At Odds Over Drug Testing
December 18, 2014
After racking up more than $650,000 in legal fees, Florida Gov. Rick Scott is refusing to back down from his drug-testing crusade, most recently objecting to an attempt to close a drawn-out legal battle over requiring state workers to submit to urinalysis.
Scott, who campaigned on the issue of drug-testing welfare recipients in his first run for governor in 2010, has lost nearly every courtroom attempt to require drug screenings for state workers and applicants for the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. The governor asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on his employee drug-testing policy, but the court turned him down in April.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that Scott could not constitutionally justify drug testing for all types of state employees without a reason, though it said testing could occur for some workers such as those in “safety-sensitive” positions.
A federal judge in Miami forced Scott and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which represents a state workers’ union, to hash out which jobs should be taken off the table. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro appointed a special master to oversee negotiations between Scott and the ACLU. The talks dragged on for months, and special master Louis Brown’s tab is more than $100,000 so far, with the state paying $70,000 and the ACLU responsible for the rest.
Now, the ACLU wants to amend its lawsuit by limiting the legal challenge to the job classes on which the governor has already relented. In its request, the ACLU argued that the workers are entitled to a final decision guaranteeing that they are not subject to suspicion-less drug testing.
“At this point, the governor cannot escape the conclusions of law in the prior appeal — namely that ‘[s]urrendering to drug testing in order to remain eligible for a government benefit such as employment … is not the type of consent that automatically renders a search reasonable as a matter of law … and that the governor’s ‘generic’ interests in a ’safe and efficient workplace’ do not constitute a special need because they would otherwise eviscerate the Fourth Amendment’s individualized suspicion requirement,” ACLU lawyer Shalini Goel Agarwal wrote in the amended complaint filed late last month.
But, in a response filed late Monday, Scott’s lawyer argued strenuously against cutting short the lawsuit, accusing the ACLU of trying to turn a partial victory into a total win by getting a ruling only on the types of jobs in which the governor has already agreed he can’t justify drug testing without a reason.
“Its request to obtain a one-sided final judgment on a subset of positions is an attempt to side-step the orders of both this court and the Eleventh Circuit, and to deny the governor the opportunity to obtain a judgment as to the positions the union has agreed he may constitutionally drug test pursuant to (Scott’s executive order), as well as those positions he intends to establish are legally subject to testing. This strategy raises legitimate questions about the union’s motives,” attorney Thomas Bishop wrote.
The state has paid Bishop nearly $180,000 since he started working on the case earlier this year. Taxpayers could also be on the hook for at least $180,000 in legal fees incurred by the ACLU.
Thus far, the state has also racked up $307,883.62 in legal fees and costs in the welfare-applicants testing case, according to the Department of Children and Families. That does not include potentially hefty charges for legal fees from the ACLU. A federal appeals court earlier this month ruled that mandatory, suspicion-less drug testing of TANF applicants is unconstitutional, but Scott has not yet said whether he will appeal.
In the state-worker case, Scott this summer agreed that people in more than 700 types of jobs — more than half of about 13,000 employees represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees including accountants, economists and translators — should not be required to undergo the drug screens without reason. Last month, Scott and the ACLU added another 203 job classes to the list.
But, while Scott has agreed not to test those classes of jobs, he has not conceded that forcing state employees to undergo urinalysis is unconstitutional despite court rulings that initiated the compromises.
The courts have ruled that flat-out drug testing of all state workers violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. But some workers, such as those who carry weapons, can be forced to submit to random urine tests if the state can show a “special interest” for doing so.
It has taken a year for Scott to come up with a list of workers who meet the criteria, Agarwal said.
“As we said in our motion, what plaintiff has been seeking for the three-and-a-half years is to vindicate the principle that mandatory, across-the-board testing of employees and job applicants is unconstitutional. So our motion to amend the complaint seeks to bring a close to this three-and-a-half-year long saga to establish that principle,” Agarwal told The News Service of Florida on Wednesday. “We’ve come to this point because it’s taken that long to get him to admit who it is that he can’t test.”
by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida
Comments
14 Responses to “Scott, State Workers Still At Odds Over Drug Testing”
I love how the media is painting the picture that state employees are either against or scared of drug testing. State workers like myself and every co worker I know couldn’t care less about being drug tested. This is just politics and a bunch of lawyers bickering! Lawyers that state employees don’t even know.
I think All police should be drug tested for steroids too..
A violation of one’s fourth amendment right is unconstitutional either way you look at it. Only 3% that have been tested come back positive. So far it has cost the state more money to administer tests and appeal court decisions than the state has saved stereotyping lower income citizens. That is not fiscally responsible. I’m tired of having my tax dollars spent on nonsense like this.
I agree with “bigbill1961″ and “area resident”. When I was in the Navy, I also had to submit to this testing with everybody else even though I’ve never had anything to do with illegal drugs, ever. But because of the problems with that in all branches of the military during the 70’s and 80’s the Navy had to go to zero-tolerance. I knew a YN2 who received orders to get transferred to the Pentagon, but he got busted for drugs (LSD no less) right before leaving our unit, so he got dis-honorable discharge instead. Everybody got tested in my Reserve unit too.
I say that able-bodied welfare people should have to get tested AND do some community work in order to receive benefits.
Have a nice day!
I work for the Department of Transportation and have no problem with drug testing. We are given a drug test when hired, have an accident, or if our work is erratic or suspicious, so why not mandatory ones? Most state workers I have talked to feel the same way. I think it’s the Unions (which I’m not a member) and the ACLU that are deadset against mandatory testing.
Isn’t it interesting how many people come to the podium when the subject opens the door to ridicule Rick Scott. This isn’t about Rick Scott; it’s about cleaning up our state and not subjecting tax payers to pay for druggies performing badly on the job. Being employed by the government (people) shouldn’t mean that you have just gotten a free ride.
I fully support drug testing, especially for jobs where safety is a strong factor. Would you want a “high” policeman driving a police car in a high speed chase? Or even a flagman flagging vehicles while under the influence? Or a nurse? Or a druggie teacher teaching your children? The company I work for drug tests and it’s true that we have very few positives, but that’s because everyone knows that they must be clean and stay clean to get and keep a job there. I think Governor Scott is on the right track and the ACLU only represents a minority of public opinion.
Like the Cops say to everyone else..
“If you have nothing to hide, why are you concerned ?”
If it is good enough for American Citizens at work, it is sure good enough these people and all Gov’t workers are subject to the same rules as us.
They sure squeal a lot when it is their pig that is hurt.
Check out the statistics. This program costs the state hundreds of thousands of dollars with little or no benefit. A whopping 2% of those tested have tested positive. The state pays the tab for the 98% and it miraculously finds its way into “plead the 5th” Rick Scott’s pockets. Do you really think he would spend over $100 million of his money he stole through Medicare fraud without a return on his investment. The Stars do not lie. It’s a nice political ploy, but the constitution and statistics do not lie.
Enjoy people, Rick Scott carried 75 % of the vote in
Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton counties, Its what
You wanted. This crook spent $ 100 million dollars
And bought the governors office twice. All his assets is
In a blind trust in his wifes name. He owns the labs
That process the urine samples, who benefits from this.
He has had five state agency heads to resign since the
Election. He is just getting started. You got four years
Of Rick. Get ready and enjoy. He is a crook,
How he could get re-elected is beyond me
Enjoy People, I give up
When I served my country in the U.S. Navy, I had to submit to random urinalysis. I did not feel that my rights were being infringed upon. It was simply a condition of my employment. It is because of our military that you enjoy the right to whine about this. It’s funny though, no one seems to complain about having to submit to urinalysis administered by an employer. People are only complaining because it affects their handouts. If someone has money for drugs, they have money for food, utilities, etc. If you don’t do drugs, what in the world are you worried about?
If the United States military has to submit to random drug testing, folks who are state workers and applicants for “Temporary” Assistance for Needy Families need to succumb as well. Even sports stars have to submit to random drug testing. What they are afraid of are these “temporary” assistance folks, failing these tests and then what? We live in the land of “I want what I want, when I want it, and you can’t ask me about it”.
Rick Scott, like so many voters in Florida, Just Doesn’t Get It.
Remember: Your Governor invoked the 5th Amendment 75 times rather than answer questions about his company’s illegal & fraudulent activities.
He MAKES US PAY for his misguided & criminal conduct.
Scott will waste your tax dollars to be right, not correct and not relevant. He will spend over a million dollars of your tax dollars and get no where. That’s what I call totally ignorant in re-electing him.