Garrett v. Clarke
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
552 F. Supp. 3d 539 (2021)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Jacoby Garrett (plaintiff) worked as a telecommunications network coordinator for the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) (defendant). Garrett’s job duties included assisting other VDOC employees with their mobile devices. Garrett did not monitor, confine, or oversee any inmates, but Garrett had occasional casual encounters with inmates at VDOC headquarters or if Garrett was performing work at a VDOC correctional facility. VDOC’s operating procedures provided that all employees were subject to random drug testing and that an employee’s failure to report for random drug testing was grounds for termination. In June 2018, a VDOC personnel assistant told Garrett that Garrett had been selected for drug testing. Garrett agreed to take the test, but before the assistant could get the testing supplies ready, Garrett learned that his manager was looking for Garrett. Garrett told the assistant, and the assistant told Garrett that the assistant would test Garrett “next time.” However, the next day, the assistant reported that Garrett had refused the drug test. VDOC placed Garrett on predisciplinary leave and ultimately fired Garrett for the purported refusal to take the test. Garrett brought an action in federal court against VDOC, VDOC Director Harold Clarke, and two other VDOC officials (defendants), asserting that VDOC’s random-drug-testing policy violated Garrett’s Fourth Amendment rights. Garrett asserted that although random, suspicionless drug testing for government employees in safety-sensitive positions was an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, Garrett’s position was not a safety-sensitive position. Clarke and the other VDOC officials moved to dismiss Garrett’s claims against them, asserting qualified immunity. Clarke and the officials argued that Garrett had not alleged a constitutional violation because the government’s interest in drug testing Garrett outweighed Garrett’s privacy interest, given Garrett’s alleged access to sensitive information and contact with inmates. However, nothing in Garrett’s complaint alleged that Garrett had access to sensitive information in his position.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Payne, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.