Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Agreeing to submit to random testing for unlawful drugs

Agreeing to submit to random testing for unlawful drugs
Gluck v Suffolk County Community College, Supreme Court, Ia Part 26, received January 4, 2002 [Not selected for inclusion in the Official Reports]

Joshua Gluck was terminated from his position of laborer by the Suffolk Community College [SCCC]. He sued, seeking reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.

The court noted that in connection with an unrelated matter, Gluck and SCCC entered into a stipulation in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding that provided as follows:

The employee will receive a (12) twelve-month period of probation beginning upon the full execution of this agreement. During the period of probation the employee shall be subject to random drug and alcohol testing, wherein should the employee test positive on a drug/alcohol test, he shall be immediately terminated without the benefit of a hearing or any other protection afforded under Civil Service law or the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The settlement agreement also provided that Gluck's probationary period would begin upon his return to work in a full duty capacity. On April 3, 2001, Gluck reported for work and was asked to submit to a drug and alcohol test.

According to the ruling, Gluck's urine specimen registered a temperature that was "out of range." He was asked to provide another urine sample for testing.

Gluck was told that his refusal to take the test would be considered an automatic positive test result, which in turn would bring about his immediate suspension without pay. He agreed to provide a second urine specimen. However, he did not allow his supervisor to witness his providing the sample. The second sample was also "out of range" and Gluck left the laboratory.

SCCC argued that Gluck's failure to provide a witness-validated urine sample constituted a failure to cooperate with the sample collection procedure. This, SCCC said, was tanta­mount to Gluck's refusal to submit to the test and Gluck had been warned that his refusal to submit to the test would be deemed a positive test and would result in his immediate suspension without pay.

Ultimately SCCC terminated Gluck.

Gluck sued, contending that he willingly gave both samples and was told by laboratory personnel that he was free to leave. He claimed that he had "no qualms about giving the samples because he had no history of drug use and does not abuse alcohol" and thus SCCC's decision to terminate him was arbitrary and capricious.

The court decided that "the record here, which must include the federal guidelines that apply to drug testing in the workplace," demonstrates that SCCC's decision to terminate Gluck was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Gluck, said the court, had agreed, as part of the disciplinary settlement stipulation he signed in February, to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. What happened on April 3, under the guidelines utilized by the laboratory facility conducting the test, was tantamount to a refusal to submit to such testing. As Gluck was told what would happen under the circumstances, his conduct violated the terms of the stipulation.

The court's conclusion: there was a rational basis for SCCC's terminating Gluck and his petition had to be dismissed.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 11, 2010 (boomark / email).