Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Employee's inability to provide the necessary urine sample for a drug test because of a medical condition trumps allegations of misconduct

 

NYC Department of Sanitation v E.L., OATH Index #2107/11
The Department of Sanitation charged a sanitation worker, E.L., with failure to complete a federally mandated drug test in violation of Rule 2.5 of the Department’s Code of Conduct. 
E.L. had appeared for the test and was cooperative but was unable to provide the required amount of urine in the three hours he was given. He subsequently submitted a note from his urologist, explaining that E.L. had urological conditions that could have prevented him from urinating. Later E.L. was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. 
The Medical Review Officer (MRO), who had no specialized knowledge in urology, ruled that the note submitted by E.L.’s physician were insufficient to excuse for E.L.’s failure to provide a sufficient sample.  In addition, the MRO refused to consider E.L.’s prostate cancer as that condition was not diagnosed within the five-day time period the regulations gave test subjects for providing a note. 
As a result, the MRO marked respondent as having refused to take the drug test and the Department initiated disciplinary action against E.L. 
OATH Administrative Law Judge Kara J. Miller found that both the test collector and the MRO failed to follow federal drug testing procedures, and these procedural errors mandated cancellation of E.L.’s test. 
In addition Judge Miller ruled that even absent the necessity for cancellation, the charges against E.L. should be dismissed as his actions were not willful and the evidence established that he was physically unable to provide the required amount of urine when asked to the urine sample requested and dismissed the charges the Department had filed against E.L.  
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-2107.pdf

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2012/04/employees-inability-to-provide-the-necessary-urine-sample-for-a-drug-test-because-of-a-medical-condition-trumps-allegations.html

Arbitration Law, Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink

Comments

that is really a awesome law blog,many useful information.
thanks for sharing information with us.

Posted by: paralegal blog | Apr 19, 2012 7:37:24 PM

ALJ Miller's decision was overturned by the Commissioner of Sanitation. You should correct this post.

See
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-2107.pdf

Which states OATH Index No. 2107/11 (Nov. 30, 2011), rejected, Comm’r Dec. (Mar. 15, 2012), appended

Posted by: Jeff Travers | Apr 20, 2012 6:39:52 AM

This is terrible. To go in for a drug test and find out you have cancer is simply devastating. This is why all men over 40 shou have periodic prostate exams.

Posted by: Mel L. | Jul 13, 2012 7:16:42 PM

Post a comment