Labor & Employment Law

Positive test for drugs

Positive test for drugs
Williams v Nicoletti, App. Div., 2nd Dept., 295 A.D.2d 353

City of White Plains motor equipment operator Robert Williams held a New York State Commercial Driver's License. The City had Williams submit to a random drug test because, it contended, federal law required the City to conduct random drug testing of its employees holding a commercial driver's license.

After finding that Williams tested positive for opiates, the City filed disciplinary charges against Williams pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. The hearing officer found the Williams guilty of misconduct "in failing the drug test while on the job," and recommended his dismissal. The City adopted the hearing officer's findings and recom­mendation and dismissed Williams.

Williams appealed, contending that the City "failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was guilty of misconduct because there was insufficient proof that the urine sample was taken properly, or that the lab instruments were accurate."

Williams had signed a certification that his urine sample had been properly collect­ed and sealed at the time he provided it for testing and he did not subsequently repudiate this certification.

In response to Williams' argument that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard applied in his case, the Appellate Division said that in the context of a review of a disci­plinary determination, "the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applies only when the penalty of dismissal is accompanied by some added stigma," citing Miller v DeBuono, 90 NY2d 783. Further, it noted that the court must sustain the hearing officer's factual determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.

Reviewing the nature of the evidence considered by the hearing officer, the court said that it consisted of among "other things, testimony of two medical and scientific experts from the testing company concerning the validity of the drug tests, complete documentation of the test results, [and] testimony of the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Works who explained the City's random drug test program...."

This, said the Appellate Division, demonstrated that the hearing officer's determination was supported by substantial evidence and dismissed Williams' appeal.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 03, 2008 (boomark / email).