Gonzalez

Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Good Law
174 F.3d 1016·99 Daily Journal DAR 3522·14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1697·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 7190·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2711
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 14, 1999No. 96-56808California3,818 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

This is a Constitutional challenge to random urine tests for bus dispatchers and instructors.

Facts.

This case was dismissed with prejudice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, so we evaluate the complaint de novo to decide whether it states a claim upon which relief could be granted, if the facts alleged were proved. Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 92 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.1996). The constitutionality of agency drug testing regulations is reviewed de novo. International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Department of Transp., 932 F.2d 1292, 1298 (9th Cir.1991).

According to the complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez both work for the municipal bus service in Los Angeles. Mrs. Gonzalez is a radio dispatcher, Mr. Gonzalez an instructor. Their employer, the Los Ange-les County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, conducts random unannounced testing for drugs and alcohol pursuant to the federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and regulations thereunder. 49 U.S.C. § 5331 ; 49 C.F.R. Part 653-54.

Mrs. Gonzalez was subjected to a urine test at a medical facility pursuant to the policy. The test came out negative, but the process was so upsetting to her, according…

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.