9th Circuit drug test ruling sets a dangerous precedent

By Frank LadraThe Guardsman

When  the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 2 that companies have  the right to deny employment based on previous failed drug screenings,  it set a precedent for discrimination in the workforce and struck a  crippling blow to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The  Pacific Maritime Association’s “one-strike” policy states that any  applicant who tests positive for drugs or alcohol during pre-employment  drug screening is permanently eliminated from employment consideration.  According to the San Francisco based federal appeals court, it does not  violate any disability discrimination laws.

The  association introduced the policy to combat accidents and injuries  employers partly blamed on a workplace culture accepting of drug and  alcohol use.

One  law in question was the Americans with Disabilities Act, which  specifically bars discrimination against “any person who has been  rehabilitated successfully and is no longer engaging in illegal drug  use.”

However,  the court insists that the decision doesn’t necessarily discriminate  against recovered or recovering addicts, but against those who test  positive for drugs during the interview process, even if that process is  decades prior.

So  essentially, even if the applicant has a proven history of  rehabilitation, one failed test follows him or her for life. At least,  it will with the Pacific Maritime Association, who is responsible for  hiring the longshoremen of the majority of the west coast.

But  other companies will certainly adopt this policy now that it has been  vindicated by the courts. And what happens if and when these companies  merge and start sharing information? Will any personal information  remain sacred?

If  precedents like this become more common, and protections guaranteed by  the 14th Amendment are further chipped away, it is foreseeable that  companies could elect more discriminatory regulations around job  opportunities for those in wheelchairs. And medical insurance companies  will become even choosier when determining which diseases seem more or  less profitable.

Laws  like the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 14th Amendment of the  Constitution were created to protect citizens from discrimination.  Poking loopholes in the law with court rulings like the “one-strike”  policy will only weaken the balance of equality.

Rehabilitation  has proven to be successful for thousands upon thousands of addicts.  But a ruling like this sends a haunting message to those recovering:  their mistakes are permanent and will constantly follow them. It  certainly doesn’t encourage those “separate but equal” citizens to get  better.

Email:
fladra@theguardsman.com