Smith v. Fresno Irrigation District

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 478·72 Cal. App. 4th 147·84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 775·99 Daily Journal DAR 4619·15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 130
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 1999F028993California6,865 words

Opinion

Opinion

Levy, J.

Introduction

Defendant Fresno Irrigation District challenges two rulings of the trial court: (1) the determination that plaintiff Ronald Smith was not required to exhaust the district’s internal grievance procedure prior to filing suit for wrongful termination; and (2) the ruling that plaintiff was not in a safety-sensitive position and hence the random drug test which plaintiff was required to take violated his constitutional right to privacy and his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we will affirm the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff’s suit was not barred by his failure to exhaust the district’s internal grievance procedure. However, upon a de novo review of plaintiff’s constitutional claims, we will find that the random drug test was justified by the hazards inherent in plaintiff’s employment and, hence, the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff must be reversed.

Background Facts

Plaintiff was hired by the Fresno Irrigation District (District) in February 1989. The District is an independent state agency responsible for water distribution and flood control. (Wat. Code, § 20570.) During the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.