RICHARD W. DRAKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, KEVIN WILSON, DR. WILLIAM H. WHALEY and WEST PACES FERRY MEDICAL CLINIC,
The employee was fired because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test. In the employee's resulting action, the district court dismissed his federal claims but refused to dismiss his state law claims on the ground that they were not preempted by federal law. On interlocutory appeal, the court affirmed. It found that state law was preempted where it regulated conduct that was addressed by a specific provision of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. State law was also preempted if it covered the subject matter of drug testing of aviation personnel performing safety-sensitive functions. Other state laws, however, that regulated issues not specifically addressed by FAA regulations were not preempted unless their relationship to such drug testing was so substantial as to interfere with the consistency and uniformity of the federal regulatory scheme. Specifically, the court noted that the employee's claim that defendants had committed the tort of misrepresentation did not cover the subject matter of "drug testing of aviation personnel" within the meaning of FAA regulations in 1993 when the employee was terminated.
John Doe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., d/b/a Cambridge College
While attending appellee medical school as a student, the student confided in a professor that he had tested positive for HIV. Later, during a mandatory blood test of all students for rubella, the professor requested an HIV test for the student, but not for anyone else. The laboratory was required to report the student's name, address, and positive HIV status to the state department of health, and also informed the medical school of the test results. On review of the dismissal of the student's complaint, the court found that the two causes of action were distinct and separate causes from each other. The court found that the state recognized a cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon an unreasonable disclosure of private facts. The court held that a person had a privacy interest in his or her blood sample and in the medical information obtained from it, and an additional unauthorized test was sufficient to state a claim for relief for intrusion upon conclusion.
ROBERT V. CONNELLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSTANCE NEWMAN
The employees contended that the drug-testing plan violated their Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting them to unlawful searches. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employees on the post-accident testing but not on the reasonable suspicion testing, finding that the employer's strong interest in reasonable suspicion drug testing outweighed the employees' expectations of privacy. Such expectations were diminished by the requirement of individual suspicion. The employer established a "special governmental need" of improving efficiency and productivity through drug-testing programs. The absence of a historical drug problem was a factor