Running head: CASE BRIEF 2 GBA 335

Case Brief 2 GBA 335
Student’s Name
Institution of Learning1

CASE BRIEF 2 GBA 335

2
Case Brief 2 GBA335

1. Case Name: Jakubowicz v. Dittemore, (W.D. MO.2006).
2. The Pinpoints: I. The procedural background (p. 2). II. The evidence (p. 2). Reasons forthe implementation of a drug testing requirement (1. The cases of drug use among
employees (p.4), 2. Perception of DHM employees as role models by the clients (p.6)).
III. Discussion of the case (p. 8). Two justifications for the random drug testing: A. The
safety reasons (p. 11), and B. The role model (p.16). Conclusion and court’s sentence
regarding the order (p. 18).
3. Procedural History: The court case is considered for the first time. It is processed by theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Central Division).
Before the actual date of the trial was scheduled, both parties expressed their desire toprovide the written evidence relevant to the case. Missouri Department of the Mental
Health submitted testimonies of two employees, whereas the plaintiffs provided theExhibit A and Exhibit B (showing the DMH’s announcements and restrictions regarding
the random drug testing).
4. Facts: This case was initiated by the three employees of the DMH (namely, Mr.
Jakubowicz, Ms. Wallen and Ms. Werley). The plaintiffs accused the DMH of theunconstitutional claims to submit the personnel to the random drug test. On April 6,2005, the director of the DMH has promulgated the letter to all employees of DMH
stating that DMH implemented the practice of random drug testing with an aim to ensure
the safety of patients and work environment. Those employees who rejected the testingor whose test results were positive were relieved of their duties pending a furtherverification. DMH provided two justification issues regarding the implementation of thepolicy. The first statement was that DMH believed that some employees of the structure
practiced illicit drugs use. The second issue was that all staff of the DMH is the role

CASE BRIEF 2 GBA 335

3models for the patients and illicit drug use puts the clients at risk. The three plaintiffs
argued that the policy of random drug testing had no relation to them.
5. Issues: First issue: The court had to decide whether to impose the permanent injunction
on Missouri Department of Mental Health for the random drug testing of the plaintiffs.
Second issue: The court had to determine whether the practice of random drug testingused by Missouri Department of Mental Health is unconstitutional.
6. Holding/Decision: First issue: Yes. Second issue: No
7. Rule: The rule for determining whether Missouri Department of Mental Health should be
imposed a permanent injunction is based on the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The particular Amendment protects the privacy and dignity of persons
against the invasive acts of Governmental officers. According to the general logic ofFourth Amendment, the DHL had to show the substantial special need of drug testing inrelation to plaintiffs in order to avoid the personal suspicion.
8. Reasoning: The Court evaluated the evidence of plaintiffs and the defendant. The latterprovided the issues to justify the implementation of random drug testing policy. DNH
showed the evidence of prior cases of illicit drug use by the employees at habilitation
center. Besides, the defendant argued that its employees are the role models for theclients and the society, and the precedents of illicit drug use by the personnel threaten aproper view of such roles. DHL also argued that some of mentally retarded patients(especially those who are or were drug addicted) are better at identifying the drug users
than the professionally trained staff. However, the defendant failed to provide thesubstantial evidence in this regard (statistics or special cases). Plaintiffs argued that theprevious incidences of drug use were detected at a habilitation center. However, all threeplaintiffs did not work there. There was no evidence of illicit drugs use at that time or
before that at the facilities, where the plaintiffs worked. Besides, plaintiffs did not have aCASE BRIEF 2 GBA 335

4direct access to drugs. They even were not engaged in direct patient-care process. Thus,
there was no clear evidence that drug testing was needed at the plaintiffs’ workenvironment. Taking into account the flaws in DMH logic regarding the use of the rolemodel with regard to former drug users (that is if the DMH detected the drug user andprovided treatment, the former drug user still would not be a positive role model for theclients), defendant failed to provide substantial evidence that the random drug testing
was necessary for Southern Missouri Mental Health Center and Mid-Missouri Mental
Health Center (the facilities, where the plaintiffs worked).
9. Disposition: The Court satisfied the order. Missouri Department of Mental Healthobtained the permanent injunction for random drug testing in relation to the plaintiffs.
However, DMH might use the drug testing if there was an obvious suspect that anemployee used illicit drugs.
10. Dissent/Concurrence: There was no any dissenting party.
11. Comments: The entire drug testing policy initiated by the DMH was the “gesture ofsymbol” that reflected the attitude of official institutions towards illegal drug use. TheCourt understands that DMH being the governmental entity tried to ensure that its
employees and patients were not involved in illegal drug use. Thus, particular will could
not be treated as unconstitutional. For this primary reason, the part concerning injunction
regarding the constitutional actions was not satisfied. However, DMH failed to show any
substantial evidence that plaintiffs had some relation or could be related to illegal druguse or distribution among patients. Therefore, the part of injunction in relation toplaintiffs was satisfied.

CASE BRIEF 2 GBA 335

5Reference

The United States District Court For The Western District Of Missouri Central Division,(2006). Case No. 05-4135-CV-C-NKL. Retrieved fromhttps://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv4135-59