Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: New York Public Personnel LawFailure of employee to provide a urine sample within the time limits set by federal regulations deemed a refusal to submit to the drug test
NYC Department of Sanitation v C.L.*, OATH Index #760/11
The New York City Department of Sanitation requires employees who are holders of commercial drivers' licenses to submit to random drug testing.
A sanitation worker, C.L. was charged with refusing to submit to a random test as a result of his failing to provide a sufficient urine sample within the time frame allotted by federal regulations.
C.L. then had five days from the date of the test to submit documentation to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) to show why he was unable to provide the required sample within the time period set by the federal regulation.
OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid Addison found that the Department had proved the refusal charge. Although Judge Addison indicated that she ?was not entirely convinced by the MRO's rationale for rejecting the medical reports submitted by C.L., C.L. failed to present any expert testimony to controvert it.
Thus, the ALJ concluded, C.L.?s failure to produce sufficient urine within the time allotted constituted a refusal as charged.
In addition, Judge Addison found that the immediate follow-up steps taken by C.L. whereupon he sought an independent urine test, rebutted the inference that his urine sample would have tested positive. Accordingly she recommended that C.L. be suspended for 25 days without pay.
* C.L. held a commercial driver?s license and was subject to both Sanitation Department and federal regulations that require random drug testing. Pursuant to such federal regulations, C.L.?s name was been withheld from publication in Judge Addison's determination.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-760.pdf
Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 29, 2010 (boomark / email).
Pet Food Recall and Deaths
Dogs and Cats Sickened by Tainted Menu Food Products
Employee Lawsuits (An Introduction and Topic Overview)
How employers can cope with the siege of employee lawsuits
Child Support
Disputing Paternity
Mitchell Report Summary
Report on Steroid Drug Use in Major League Baseball by Senator George Mitchell
Language Requirements for Citizenship
Naturalization without an English language test
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
Brown Greer et al.
alleging that the six law firms handling the Vioxx settlement failed to provide money for reimbursements to lien rights of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans.
Drug Manufacturer Rebates
Caremark Corp. agrees to pay $38.5 million settlement after convincing doctors to switch drug brands.
Water Samples
Govert Well & Pump agrees to $100,000 settlement after failing to test for coliform bacteria.
Canadian Government
allegedly used Canadian soldier as test subjects for nuclear explosion radiation exposure.
Microsoft Corp.
allegedly failed to provide adequate access and service to Xbox Live and its subscribers.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
allegedly failed to provide adequate facilities for the disabled.

Termination of Employee Upheld For Failure To Report For Drug Test
When is a Refusal Not a Refusal
Wow, they REALLY wanted that urine sample
DRUG TESTING IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS
ACLU Sues Pawtucket Over Illegal Drug Testing








