Gonzalez

MEMORANDUM **

In 1996, Denise and Ruben Gonzalez, employees of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), challenged the constitutionality of random drug and alcohol testing, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim. We reversed and remanded. Gonzalez v. MTA 174 F.3d 1016 , 1020 (9th Cir.1999). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the Gonzalezes and entered a permanent injunction barring random drug testing of Denise or Ruben. (Their claims for declaratory relief and damages have been stayed in the district court pending this appeal.) The MTA and intervenors the United States Department of Transportation appealed. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Biodiversity Legal Found, v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166 , 1175 (9th Cir. 2002), and we now reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

I. Mootness

The MTA argued that Denise’s request for injunctive relief was moot because she left her job with the MTA in 1997 and moved to Arizona, where she and Ruben bought a home in 2000 after selling their home in California.…

Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

In response to our remand of Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez’s cases, the district court did exactly what we asked it to do: it carefully balanced the search’s intrusion on the individuals’ Fourth Amendment interests against the search’s promotion of legitimate governmental interests. 1 The district court ultimately determined that the random drug testing was unreasonable as applied to these two individuals, and thus violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The question is close, but I would accept the measured judgment of the district court.

As a dispatcher for the MTA, Mrs. Gonzalez had no lowered expectation of privacy, and her position could hardly be called “safety-sensitive.” Buses do not fly, so even though she may give directions, there is not the kind of safety risk that there would be if she were an air traffic controller. She sits in a room with other people and answers phone calls. As for receiving calls, only three or four times in 17 years did she have to respond to any kind of emergency. When an emergency did occur, her sole responsibility was to call the police or ambulance. In this function, her work is no more safety…