X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The federal scheme for the drug testing of transportation employees does not pre-empt a state common-law cause of action brought for a false positive drug test, an Eastern District of New York judge has ruled. Judge Frederic Block, ruling on an issue that has divided some circuit courts, found that the pre-emption language of Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) and rules passed to implement the act make clear that the federal government intended only to prevent state or local law from interfering with its drug testing regime. The ruling came in the case of Drake v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 02-CV-1924, the latest filing in the 10-year effort of former Delta Airlines flight attendant Richard W. Drake to clear his name. Drake lost his job in 1993 because he allegedly failed a drug test required by OTETA. He claimed the test was a false positive, the result of a series of errors in handling the sample and the alteration of test results. He also claimed that the false positive contradicted other tests on the same sample that clearly showed a lack of narcotics or adulterants in his system. When he was fired after refusing to resign, Drake claimed, he asked the defendants for records relating to his drug test, but he was told the records had either been lost or destroyed. After several rounds of litigation, including complaints to the Federal Aviation Administration, Drake was faced with the lab company’s motion to dismiss his federal claims. The company also argued that Drake’s state claims, which included negligence, spoliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were pre-empted by both OTETA and the language of rules adopted pursuant to the act by the FAA. Judge Block said the only federal circuit courts to rule on the issue of pre-emption in the drug testing arena split on the issue. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Frank v. Delta Airlines Inc., 314 F.3d 195 (2002), found in favor of pre-emption. But the 9th Circuit, in Ishikawa v. Delta Airlines Inc., 343 F.3d 1129 (2003), just 10 weeks ago found that a state negligence claim against a testing lab was neither expressly or impliedly pre-empted. Noting that district courts have also been divided on the issue, Block said there was “significant regulatory and legislative history, which neither Frank nor Ishikawa has plumbed” that addresses whether the FAA or Congress sought to pre-empt state common-law tort remedies. The FAA, in a 1987 statement leading up to the adoption of its pre-emption rule on drug testing in 1988, said, “This rule pre-empts any State or local law that would prohibit or limit drug testing required under the rule.” Thus, Block said, “the avowed preemptive purpose was not aimed at barring suits for common law torts; it was intended to prevent any state from prohibiting or limiting the drug testing required by the FAA.” Moreover, he said, Congress reinforced and confirmed these regulations when it passed OTETA in 1991. Block said a Senate report leading up to the passage expressed concern that the new statute and the FAA’s regulations on testing would be affected by several states that had passed limitations prohibiting or restricting drug testing. “In the present case, both the statutory and regulatory language, and their collective underlying purpose, compel the conclusion that neither the preemption provisions nor the drug testing regulations were expressly or impliedly intended to preclude any common law tort claims,” he said. ACCEPTABLE REMEDY After parsing the language of U.S. Supreme Court case law on the issue of pre-emption, Block said one key point is that state claims do not conflict with the federal regulatory scheme, and “what is common to all of Drake’s common law claims is that they need not be dependent on the violation of any particular regulation; rather, they could be separately actionable based on traditional state tort law. “To hold otherwise would mean that drug testers would invariably be immunized from any compensatory liability for their misbehavior,” he said, because there is no private right of action for violation of drug testing regulations, and “constitutional claims will rarely be cognizable.” Block also noted that the sole recourse for a plaintiff under a strict pre-emption format would be to file a complaint with the FAA, which only has the power to proscribe future violations and cannot grant damages. “Given the egregious nature of a false positive test report, this is simply not an acceptable remedy,” Block said. “It is inconceivable that Congress would want to bar — and it has not — one who has been falsely accused of illicit drug usage from seeking common law compensation from those responsible for devastating his or her life.” Samuel O. Maduegbuna of Maduegbuna Cooper represented the plaintiff. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings was represented by Demetrios C. Batsides of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione. Northwest Toxicology Inc. was represented by Jeffrey Hurd of Phelan, Burke & Scolamiero.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.