Provide a summary of the case, American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia v. Kanawha County Board of Education, by providing a summary of: the facts in that case (the facts of this case are outlined in the Court’s opinion), the issue (or question) presented to the Court and a summary of the ultimate decision of the Court (this is summarized in the textbook and is found in the Court’s opinion).
The American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia v. Kanawha County Board of Education case emerged when the latter party sought to introduce compulsory drug testing for teachers as well as other employees in public schools. Also, the Kanawha County board had initiated an employee drug prevention policy on December 13, 2007 indicating some of the situations when drug testing should be carried out such as: Before employment, missing substances, when one is held on suspicion, fitness for duty, transfer, promotion incentives, and also when one resumes duty ( Moran, 2013 ). The regulations were later on revised in 2008. Despite this, the petitioners sought to challenge the section in the amended regulations indicating that drug tests will be conducted randomly. The board alleged that the regulations where meant to protect and safeguard the public`s health. Part of what the Court was seeking to establish is whether the Board acting on behalf of the state was violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article III, \& 6 of the West Virginia Constitution ( Moran, 2013 ).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the teachers, Mr. Albert from the plaintiff`s side who presented evidence before the Court held the perception that the law was going to demean the teachers and intrude in their personal lives ( Moran, 2013 ). Dr. Duerring, one of the defendants, further stated that the random tests were necessary owing to prior incidents such as one where up to 9 employees were found to be under the influences of drugs ( Moran, 2013 ). He, however, agreed that no student in the county had experienced any form of suffering as a result of an alcoholic or drug dependent teacher. The judgment made by the U.S District Court, Southern District of West Virginia Charleston Division indicated that there was no sufficient evidence to indicate that employees are posing any substantial risk to the students ( Moran, 2013 ). According to Vernonia and Earls , the Court does not have any specific mandate to exercise the same degree of control on teachers as it has on children ( Moran, 2013 ).
Explain what the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 81) is and to whom it is applicable.
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988(41 U.S.C. 81) is a law that applies to contractors who offer an amount exceeding $25000 worth of property or services to the federal government in addition to the employers who receive federal grant monies (U.S District Court Southern WV Charleston Div, 2009). Contractors in this case refer to a department or individual with an obligation under the contract. In the Drug-Free Workplace Act Section (§ 8102) the employer has an obligation of starting a drug-free program at work where they are to involve their employees (U.S District Court Southern WV Charleston Div, 2009). Also, according to this Act, a conspicuous notice is to be established to the employer once it has been observed within an environment where such an activity is prohibited. Correspondingly, when an employer learns that an employee has been involved in any form of drug abuse, they are supposed to report the activity to the federal agency mandated to deal with such issues within a duration of 10 days after learning about such goings-on ( Moran, 2013 ). In addition to this, the employer has a specific responsibility of ensuring that their workplace is drug free. Further still, the Drug-Free Workplace Act requires that the employer educates all the employees regarding the dangers of drug abuse. The latter individuals should also be made aware of the availability of treatment programs and also on the consequences likely to ensue from the abuse of drugs.
State whether you are in agreement with the Court’s decision in, American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia v. Kanawha County Board of Education, and comment on whether you believe that student safety should override the employee's right to privacy interests (provide support for your position).
I am in agreement with the Court`s decision in, American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia v. Kanawha County Board of Education. As has been specified, there are no serious consequences reported to have resulted to the drug abuse behavior or alcoholic tendencies of employees (United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, 2009). Concrete safety risks have to be established in order for the Board of Education in Kanawha County to be justified in coming up with the random checks that they are proposing. A good examples of employees who would be posing a great risk through their drug related problems are those working in the pipeline or airline industry. In such environments, smoking should be prohibited and appropriate action taken against individuals found to be in violation of such regulations. Also the requirement to undertake regular drug checks is something that should be undertaken on the students. Initiating policies against the teachers without express action being taken on the students is unjustified and humiliating.
It is also apparent that student safety should override the employee's right to privacy interests. This should, nonetheless, be limited to a certain extent. Meaning that the privacy of teachers should not be in any way violated by using such suppositions to justify the initiation of regular drug checks. I believe that a more appropriate measure that could be taken in this case is establishing a way of installing Surveillance in the school premises. This way, no suspicious drug related activity can go undetected.
Besides, the above mentioned factors, teachers encounter their superiors on a regular basis, and it is uncivilized for them to appear before them while under the influence of alcohol or drugs during a normal working day. Additionally, the employer cannot dismiss an employee unless they have viable proof to show that such a worker was actively involved in drug abuse. A good example of an incident where it happened that a worker was dismissed from work unlawfully is the one involving Doukas B, Siotkas who had been employed by Delta in 1999 as a pilot ( Moran, 2013 ). The former who is the plaintiff had been asked to submit a sample of his urine for testing. It was later purported that he had substituted his urine sample and his employment was, therefore, terminated from his position as a pilot. Further still, his certificate as a pilot at Delta was withdrawn. Following the precedings in Court, it was indicated that the termination from work was unlawful. In such a case, the employee is required to establish: Knowledge by a third party to the contract, a valid contract, the conduct of a third party to breach the contract, and damage the plaintiff as a result of the breach (United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, 2009). With such establishments, they will be in a position to ensure that incidences of wrongful termination do not occur.
References
Moran, J. J. (2013). Employment Law, New Challenges in the Business Environment, Sixth Edition : ISBN 13:978-0-13-307522-9.
United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia (Jan 8, 2009). American Fed. Of Teachers v. Kanawha Bd. of Educ. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/american-fed-of-teachers-v-kanawha-bd-of-educ?find =
U.S District Court Southern WV Charleston Div. (2009). American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia v. Kanawha County Board of Education. : ISBN 13:978-0-13-307522-9.
