Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Crystal R.green1 sentence2023Between January and August of 2022, mother never once submitted to a random drug test, and no-showed 11 times. “[A] missed drug test, without adequate justification, is ‘properly considered the equivalent of a positive test result.’ ” (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 ; see also In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [same].) Although mother submitted three negative tests, they are of little value because they were conducted on dates mother chose, and therefore not “random.” What is more, mother offered contradictory explanations for not testing, stating that | 1 | 1 |
Aubrey v. School Board of Lafayette Parishgreen1 sentence1999(Aubrey v. School Bd. of Lafayette Parish (5th Cir. 1998) 148 F.3d 559, 565 [“. . . the Board’s need to conduct the suspicion-less searches pursuant to the drug testing policy outweighs the privacy interests of the employees in an elementary school who interact regularly with students, use hazardous substances, operate potentially dangerous equipment, or otherwise pose any threat or danger to the students”].) These cases demonstrate that it is not the number of persons who could be injured by a drug-impaired worker that determines the constitutional validity of random drug testing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shahida R.
green
1 sentence2023Between January and August of 2022, mother never once submitted to a random drug test, and no-showed 11 times. “[A] missed drug test, without adequate justification, is ‘properly considered the equivalent of a positive test result.’ ” (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 ; see also In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [same].) Although mother submitted three negative tests, they are of little value because they were conducted on dates mother chose, and therefore not “random.” What is more, mother offered contradictory explanations for not testing, stating that | 1 | 2023–2023 |
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 3 v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2015(Operating Engineers Local 3 v. Johnson, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 190 .) Therefore, the workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not apply.2 III Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress LRLO also contends Aro and O'Toole did not prove the necessary elements of their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Semore v. Pool
green
2 sentences1999In Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 280 ], the plaintiff was discharged for refusing to take a random drug test (a pupillary reaction eye test). 1999In Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 280 ], the plaintiff was discharged for refusing to take a random drug test (a pupillary reaction eye test). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Nos. 89-70061, 89-70308
green
1 sentence1999The District’s legitimate interest in protecting the life and safety of its employees through a random drug testing policy designed to detect and deter drug use is indistinguishable from the concern for public safety which “animates the general acceptance of drug testing by courts.” {IBEW, Local 1245 v. Skinner, supra, 913 F.2d at p. 1462 .) Chandler does not compel a different result. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences1994(Id., at p. 1050, fn. 9.) In Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 618 ], plaintiff Luck, who was discharged for refusing to take a random drug test which was part of a new policy instituted by her employer, sued for wrongful termination and obtained a jury verdict in her favor. 1994(Id., at p. 1050, fn. 9.) In Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 618 ], plaintiff Luck, who was discharged for refusing to take a random drug test which was part of a new policy instituted by her employer, sued for wrongful termination and obtained a jury verdict in her favor. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp.
green
2 sentences1990Before turning to a refutation of the latter proposition above noted, it is worthy of observation that the majority has invoked Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 194 ], in aid of the processes by which it reaches its underlying conclusion that the pupillary reaction eye test here involved could be an invasion of plaintiff’s privacy. 1990Before turning to a refutation of the latter proposition above noted, it is worthy of observation that the majority has invoked Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 194 ], in aid of the processes by which it reaches its underlying conclusion that the pupillary reaction eye test here involved could be an invasion of plaintiff’s privacy. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.