COURT OKS DRUG TESTS : GLENDALE CAN SCREEN APPLICANTS, BUT NOT THOSE SEEKING PROMOTIONS.

Byline: Lee Condon Daily News Staff Writer

Government agencies can test any job applicant for drug use, not just those seeking work in public safety areas, the California Supreme Court decided Monday.

But at the same time, the court ruled current government employees do not have to submit to drug tests as a condition of promotions.

In the 5-2 landmark decision, the court found Glendale is entitled to test new applicants for drug use, because of the large financial costs the city could incur in dealing with drug- or alcohol-dependent employees who may be frequently absent or tardy, cause safety problems or reduce productivity.

But the court also issued a 4-3 decision prohibiting the city of Glendale from drug testing any of its 1,500 employees when they apply for promotions.

The court found that the city did not have an overriding need to test those current employees for drug use because the city is already familiar with their performance levels and professional behavior.

``This decision has tremendous impact,'' said Glendale's City Attorney Scott Howard. ``We got the right to test all pre-employment applicants. The taxpayers are clearly the winners.''

The decision only directly impacts government employers, Scott said. The California Supreme Court has declined to review a Court of Appeal decision that says private employers can enact reasonable drug screening. Still, Howard said the ruling likely will give private employers more confidence in implementing tougher drug-testing standards.

The decision culminated a 10-year battle between the city of Glendale and the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued Glendale in 1986 to attempt to overturn the city's then-new policy.

It has been regarded as the test case for government drug screening policy in California.

Marvin Krakow, the volunteer attorney who argued the case for the ACLU, said he was glad the court is prohibiting Glendale from drug testing employees up for promotions, but said across-the-board-testing of all applicants is an unjustified invasion of privacy.

He said Californians' privacy protections - which are greater than those provided by the U.S. Constitution - withstood the city's efforts to drug test current employees.

``Unfortunately, the court then chose to gut Fourth Amendment protections by allowing across-the-board testing of every man and woman who has been offered a job with the city of Glendale. This ruling demonstrates how our country's drug policy has corrupted our concerns for civil liberties.''

The court heard arguments from both sides in the case, Loder vs. Glendale, in October.

Glendale was asking the Supreme Court to overturn a 1994 Court of Appeal decision, which limited the city to testing only certain employees like police officers, firefighters and employees who operate machinery or heavy equipment - roughly 20 percent of its work force.

The city argued that it should be able to test all applicants, regardless of whether their drug use was likely to imperil public safety or not, as well as to test current employees seeking promotions. But Krakow, the lead lawyer for the ACLU, argued that the city needed to provide a justification any time it did a drug test, because the screening is a violation of the applicant's privacy rights under the state constitution.