Loder v. City of Glendale
California Supreme Court
927 P.2d 1200 (1997)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
In 1986, the City of Glendale, California (the city) (defendant) adopted a new drug-testing program applicable to all new employees and current employees approved for promotion. For at least 10 years prior to 1986, the city had required all new employees and current employees approved for promotion to undergo a pre-placement medical exam, which included urinalysis screening for various medical conditions. Under the new drug-testing program, both the pre-placement medical exam and the drug test were conducted at a medical office and started with urine collection. The subject had to undress, don a hospital gown, and urinate into a container in a bathroom cubicle with a medical employee listening from an adjacent cubicle. The urine sample was first tested onsite for certain medical issues, and the subject then underwent the physical portion of the pre-placement medical exam. The urine sample was then sent to a lab where it was tested for drugs. A positive drug test lacking a valid medical explanation disqualified the applicant from hiring or promotion. Lorraine Loder (plaintiff) was a taxpayer who sued to enjoin further use of the drug-testing program on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, among other arguments. The trial court concluded that the drug-testing program was unlawful to the extent that it applied across the board to all new employees and current employees approved for promotion, and the appellate court agreed. The parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (George, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.