Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 14
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
"Substantial Evidence" Upholds Removal for Positive Results on Random Drug Test
Total Comments: 14
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6407 | +0.0013 | +2.94% |
| F | $12.1372 | -0.0503 | +1.74% |
| C | $11.4287 | -0.6930 | -30.99% |
| S | $13.6726 | -0.8353 | -30.91% |
| I | $15.5558 | -0.5904 | -37.17% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $13.2999 | -0.5876 | -27.08% |
| L 2030 | $13.2719 | -0.5131 | -23.77% |
| L 2020 | $13.3354 | -0.4274 | -19.91% |
| L 2010 | $13.9552 | -0.2255 | -9.73% |
| L Income | $12.8027 | -0.1371 | -4.95% |
October 8, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
positive drug test
FAA
Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:33 AM
Post Reply
This story concerns me. I am aware of many false positives in the horse racing industry. It sounds like this employee took active steps to fight the action. Yet, his appeal was doomed because he probably found out about the positive beyond the 2 to 3 day window. I guess the moral is - pay to have your urine tested immediately after a random drug test. I believe I would do so.
Re: positive drug test
navair
Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:32 AM
No Justice
Navair
Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:44 AM
Post Reply
I guess this goes to show that there is no justice in the FED workforce. This is a major miscarriage of justice. I would hope that someone with some guts will take notice of this and do something about it.
Re: No Justice
VA
Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:24 AM
removal upheld in random drug test
SSA
Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:59 AM
Post Reply
After 40+ years as an attorney, I am still astonished at decisions such as this one! Polygraph results are not always admissable in court because they are not considered scientifically reliable, but this is not a criminal case. The results are material and should at least show the employee's intent to establiosh that he was truthful and should have bene persuasive. I even agree that the subsequent drug tests were too far outside the appropriate time range to rebut the random test results, but the inconclusive DNA test should have certainly been sufficient to rebut the presumption that this was his sample that was tested, despite the chain of command evidence, which is often flawed when multiple samples are taken. An employee could do no more than was done here. When all the considerable evidence he presented is insufficient, it should be frightening to all employees. There are false positives and mistakes made. Hope Meza keeps appealing!
False Positive Drug Test
Energy
Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:28 AM
Post Reply
I got the first "random drug test" at DOE's Savannah River Site, and was the first to get a "broken chain of custody", which meant no result, positive or negative. From the scientific literature at the time, I knew that marijuana testing resulted in 4 percent false positive, and four percent false negative results. I wonder how high the false positive rate is now? And how high the "broken chain of custody" rate is? This story indicates that the employee was innnocent, but still disciplined. And, yes, hair testing for drugs is accurate for weeks or even months after use of drugs. Why did the court neglect the most accurate results available? Any good lawyer could get this overturned, for cause, not just on technicalities of the law.
No Justice
SSA
Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:32 AM
Post Reply
Labs make mistakes all of the time. I also thought the hair follicle test was supposed to show a history of drug use. Obviously he was guilty until proven innocent - which he provided ample evidence of and was still found guilty. There was more than evidence to create reasonable doubt about his guilt. This should scare anyone in a free country - it could happen to anyone at any time, be on your record for the rest of your life, and be totally false. If an "official" says something against you and it's your word against theirs, guess who will always win?
Very scary
PEO Aviation
Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:32 AM
Post Reply
Although I'm not in a position that requires random drug testing, this decision scares me considering the probabilities of false positives. My understanding is that the hair follicle test will show history up to 90 days. It sounds like this guy did that particular test within those 90 days.
Is there a higher court this guy could appeal to? It's just down right scary to think of the innocent people who could/have lost their jobs due to false reports. I just don't think urine tests give out enough information or necessarily the correct information.
Benefit of the doubt
faa
Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:10 AM
Post Reply
This case is truly disturbing. I have told our controllers over the years that if they're clean, they have nothing to fear with random drug testing. I'm now afraid that I gave them bad information. What does a person have to do to prove themself clean? I've always chuckled to myself when someone requested time off to go get an independent test after an agency drug screen. To me, it seemed like money down the drain. NO MORE! In fact, I would now highly recommend it to anyone who is being screened. In this case, even if the employee DID do the cocaine, the system seemingly failed, or at the very least, it allowed a ton of doubt about the legitimacy of the process as a whole. This is still America and I've always had great faith in her ability to deliver justice. But after reading this account, my confidence in that belief has now been somewhat rattled.