Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ... Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
On May 14, 2001, the U.S, Supreme Court ruled that marijuana may not be distributed to individuals for medical reasons. The case, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, et al., was decided by a unanimous vote. Even though several states allow patients with a doctor’s recommendation to grow, possess, and use the drug for pain, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no currently accepted medical use recognized by federal law. Since federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal substance and offers no medical exceptions, the court ruled that distribution of the drug is illegal. The ruling did not address or change existing state laws that allow the medicinal use of marijuana, however, it does mean that marijuana manufacturers and distributors may be prosecuted at the federal level. Each state will need to determine how this ruling impacts their respective state laws. 3. Employee Reinstatement – Public Policy Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America On November 2, 2001 the United States Supreme Court decided the Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America case in which the petitioner asked the court to clarify when courts can overrule arbitrators’ decisions when they are contrary to public policy considerations. In this case, an arbitrator reinstated a coal company truck driver to his safety-sensitive position on two separate occasions following positive drug tests for marijuana, concluding that the employer did not have “just cause” to discharge the employee. The court concluded that the reinstatement of the employee was not contrary to public policy since the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations leave disciplinary action up to the discretion of the employer. The regulations state the conditions under which an individual who violates the rules (i.e., positive test result) may be returned to safetysensitive positions. Since the collective bargaining agreement granted the arbitrator authority to interpret the meaning of their contract’s language, including such words as “just cause” and the employee was required to successfully complete the return-to-duty process, the arbitrator did not act outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority and did not violate any law or regulation. The arbitrator’s award is consistent with DOT rules requiring completion of substance abuse treatment before returning to work following a positive test result. 4. Dispatchers – Safety Sensitive Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority The California case, Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was filed in April 1996 on behalf of a radio dispatcher and instructor employed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The district court dismissed the complaint, which challenged the grantee’s policy, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-26 August 2002
plaintiffs agreed that their positions were not safety-sensitive and consequently should not be subject to FTA drug or alcohol testing. On April 14, 1999, a unanimous panel of the 9 th Circuit reversed and sent the case back to the trial court to review the designation of dispatchers as safety-sensitive workers. The appeals court stated, “We do not know, from the record we have, whether the employees at issue would pose a substantial immediate threat to public safety if impaired by drugs or alcohol, or whether the procedure for testing them would be reasonably effective for finding out if they are impaired, or whether the tests as performed were an undue invasion of their privacy. Facts might be proved under the complaint that would entitle plaintiffs to relief.” The employees challenging the testing have the burden of proving the case. Until this matter is ultimately resolved, FTA grantees, subrecipients, (and their covered contractors) must continue to implement FTA’s drug and alcohol testing regulations, including those affecting dispatchers. 5. Random Testing – Federal Law Supercedes State Law O’Brien v. MBTA On December 4, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a federal District Court decision that permitted the Massachusetts Bay Transportation authority (MBTA) to conduct random drug and alcohol testing of transit police. In this case, O’Brien v. MBTA, two transit police officers contended that MBTA’s drug testing program violated their rights under federal law and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that by accepting federal transit assistance, Massachusetts officials must abide by the conditions that Congress attached to them, one of which mandates random drug and alcohol tests for employees who perform safetysensitive functions. The Court of Appeals stated that because the Act includes an express pre-emption provision, contrary state law could not stand as an obstacle to the testing protocol. 6. Employee Reinstatement – ADA Discrimination Claim Wilson v. SEPTA and TWU Philadelphia Local 234 Wilson v. SEPTA and TWU Philadelphia Local 234 was filed in federal District Court in Philadelphia by a bus operator who was fired after twice testing positive for alcohol. He alleged that his firing was discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability at the time SEPTA discharged him. In a ruling dated January 26, 1999, the court declined to dismiss the complaint. The court found that the employee met the definition of “disabled” for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA in connection with his discharge from SEPTA. The ultimate issue of whether the firing was disability discrimination is yet to be determined by the court. Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-27 August 2002
- Page 1 and 2: October 2009 Implementation Guideli
- Page 3 and 4: Notice This document is disseminate
- Page 5 and 6: METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS E
- Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Chapter 1. INTROD
- Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents (continued) Secti
- Page 11 and 12: Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION Section 1.
- Page 13 and 14: Transit employers may go beyond the
- Page 15 and 16: Recommendation: Know the Regulation
- Page 17 and 18: Sample Documentation Chapter 1. Int
- Page 19 and 20: DHHS-Certified Laboratories, Center
- Page 21 and 22: FTA Drug and Alcohol Management Inf
- Page 23 and 24: Research And Special Programs Admin
- Page 25 and 26: employment in safety-sensitive posi
- Page 27 and 28: What happens in these cases? The pu
- Page 29 and 30: Section 3. SAFETY-SENSITIVE • Ope
- Page 31 and 32: performing the volunteer service ar
- Page 33 and 34: Safety-sensitive Examples of Nation
- Page 35 and 36: • A description of the consequenc
- Page 37 and 38: projects, the employer should notif
- Page 39 and 40: Sample Documentation Chapter 2. Reg
- Page 41 and 42: Certification of Compliance for FTA
- Page 43 and 44: 4. Atlanta Federal Center Suite 17T
- Page 45: 1. Liability of Service Agents Yasu
- Page 49 and 50: FTA and FMCSA Regulatory Comparison
- Page 51 and 52: FTA and FMCSA Regulatory Comparison
- Page 53 and 54: process ensures that all critical c
- Page 55 and 56: Chapter 3. Program Formulation 3-4
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 4. POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND C
- Page 59 and 60: concentration of 0.04 or greater th
- Page 61 and 62: has a confirmed alcohol concentrati
- Page 63 and 64: MRO before the employer is notified
- Page 65 and 66: policy with the requirement to form
- Page 67 and 68: Do not assume that your contractors
- Page 69 and 70: PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING NOTIFIC
- Page 71 and 72: Sample Program Notification Letter
- Page 73 and 74: authorized by the employer to make
- Page 75 and 76: The 60 minutes of awareness trainin
- Page 77 and 78: medications which could result in p
- Page 79 and 80: employees who have problems with pr
- Page 81 and 82: particular alcohol testing device t
- Page 83 and 84: emain current with the regulations
- Page 85 and 86: − Changes in Rules, Guidance and
- Page 87 and 88: Exhibit 5-1 Summary of Education an
- Page 89 and 90: Exhibit 5-3 Typical Agenda for Supe
- Page 91 and 92: Exhibit 5-4 REASONABLE SUSPICION TR
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 6. TYPES OF TESTING Six typ
- Page 95 and 96: Previous DOT Employer Record Check
On May 14, 2001, the U.S, Supreme Court ruled that marijuana may not be distributed<br />
to individuals for medical reasons. The case, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’<br />
Cooperative, et al., was decided by a unanimous vote. Even though several states allow<br />
patients with a doctor’s recommendation to grow, possess, and use the drug for pain, the<br />
Supreme Court reiterated that there is no currently accepted medical use recognized by<br />
federal law. Since federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal substance and offers no<br />
medical exceptions, the court ruled that distribution of the drug is illegal.<br />
The ruling did not address or change existing state laws that allow the medicinal use of<br />
marijuana, however, it does mean that marijuana manufacturers and distributors may be<br />
prosecuted at the federal level. Each state will need to determine how this ruling impacts<br />
their respective state laws.<br />
3. Employee Reinstatement – Public Policy<br />
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America<br />
On November 2, 2001 the United States Supreme Court decided the Eastern<br />
Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America case in which the petitioner<br />
asked the court to clarify when courts can overrule arbitrators’ decisions when they are<br />
contrary to public policy considerations. In this case, an arbitrator reinstated a coal<br />
company truck driver to his safety-sensitive position on two separate occasions following<br />
positive drug tests for marijuana, concluding that the employer did not have “just cause” to<br />
discharge the employee.<br />
The court concluded that the reinstatement of the employee was not contrary to public<br />
policy since the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations leave disciplinary action<br />
up to the discretion of the employer. The regulations state the conditions under which an<br />
individual who violates the rules (i.e., positive test result) may be returned to safetysensitive<br />
positions. Since the collective bargaining agreement granted the arbitrator<br />
authority to interpret the meaning of their contract’s language, including such words as<br />
“just cause” and the employee was required to successfully complete the return-to-duty<br />
process, the arbitrator did not act outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority<br />
and did not violate any law or regulation. The arbitrator’s award is consistent with DOT<br />
rules requiring completion of substance abuse treatment before returning to work following<br />
a positive test result.<br />
4. Dispatchers – Safety Sensitive<br />
Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority<br />
The California case, Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was filed in<br />
April 1996 on behalf of a radio dispatcher and instructor employed by the Los Angeles<br />
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The district court dismissed<br />
the complaint, which challenged the grantee’s policy, and the plaintiffs appealed. The<br />
Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-26 August 2002
Change language