Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Testing for drugs

Testing for drugs
Roy v City of New York, 685 NY2d 668

How much evidence is sufficient to require an employee to take a drug test? And if the employee refuses to take the drug test, is that grounds for dismissal?

The Appellate Division addressed those questions in the Roy case. The court ruled that an informant?s statement to a police officer that she had observed Gary Roy, a New York City police officer, using drugs on numerous occasions constituted substantial evidence and provided the amount of reasonable suspicion required for an order directing a drug test for cause.

The Appellate Division said the informant?s story was reasonably detailed. The fact that some of information provided by the informant was self-incriminatory also suggested credibility to the court. The Appellate Division also commented that Roy?s termination for refusing to submit to a drug test when ordered to do so, under the circumstances, did not shock its sense of fairness, upholding Roy?s termination.

However, there was a ?back pay? issue to be resolved. The Appellate Division said that Roy had been suspended without pay for more than 30 days pending resolution of the disciplinary action. The decision notes that Roy was suspended without pay on May 2, 1996 and dismissed, following the hearing and determination of the charge supporting the suspension, on July 26, 1996.

Since there was no evidence that Roy was responsible for the delay in the determination of the charge beyond the 30 days suspension period permitted by Civil Service Law Sections 75(3), he is entitled to back pay for the period from June 2, 1996 to July 26, 1996, less any earnings he may have received from other sources during that period.

This is somewhat troublesome, however. Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Civil Service Law originally provided for such an adjustment for earnings received from other sources during a period of suspension without pay in excess of 30 days upon the restoration of the individual to his or her former position.

But these three sections were amended in 1984. Chapter 710 of the Law of 1984 deleted the phrase ?compensation which he may have earned in any other employment or occupation....?

These sections now provide that an employee who is acquitted of disciplinary charges or whose reinstatement is directed by a civil service commission or the court is to be ?restored to his position with full pay for the period of the suspension less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits he may have received during such period.? It would seem that the same rationale would be applied in cases where an individual has been suspended without pay for a period in excess of that authorized by statute.

Similar language is used in Education Law Section 3020-a.4(b) with respect to the payment of back salary upon acquittal.
NYPPL

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 01, 2010 (boomark / email).