Court Opinion

ID: 9537988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:13.956696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:15.560982
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring):
I fully concur in the court’s opinion. I write separately only to highlight three factors which I regard as pivotal to our decision in this case and which may well distinguish other cases with some surface similarities from this one.
First, the employer in this case is involved in activities of such an important and sensitive nature that it is entitled to insist, in an aggressive and uncompromising way, on an absolutely drug-free workforce and not merely a drug-free workplace. While other industries share that trait, many do not. A degree of employer and public confidence is needed, with respect to an environment where rocket motors are being assembled, that simply does not exist in an environment where hamburgers are being assembled.
Second, the drug test which precipitated the employee’s termination in this case was not really random. Rather, the test was performed on an employee with a demonstrated history of drug use, a history which was discovered in the course of a prior drug test administered for a specific, focused purpose, namely involvement in an accident while driving a company vehicle, and pursuant to announced policy. More*973over, the initial drug test by itself was not considered sufficient grounds for termination. Rather, the employee was given counselling and a probationary “second chance.” His susceptibility to follow-up testing was for a finite period of time reasonable in duration under the circumstances, i.e., one year.
Finally, substantial evidence of record, including expert testimony, supports the conclusions that 1) the particular testing methodology is beyond reproach and 2) the test results establish not merely the presence of an illicit substance in the system but rather use of that substance during, and contrary to the terms of, the employee’s probation.
In my view, if any of these three factors were not present, the employer’s discharge of the employee would not be with sufficient “good cause” to deprive the employee of unemployment benefits.