A Florida airport security guard gained a new employer when the governing contract changed hands. Right away, he and others reacted badly to the new employer’s practices, and they complained repeatedly. But later, the guard’s drug test came back positive for marijuana, and he was fired. He sued, charging the drug test was a pretext for the real reasons.For a
Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report on the "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management, 2010”. This comprehensive 50 page report covers Healthcare, Recordkeeping, Hiring, Retention, and other compliance issues.
Download NowWhat happened. “Gomez,” a Hispanic armed guard at Tampa International Airport, and his co-workers began reporting to Eagle Technologies at the beginning of June 2007, after he had worked at the airport for 6 years. They immediately protested that Eagle refused to pay them for 16 hours’ mandatory training, to reimburse their expenses for alterations and other costs related to new uniforms, and to allow them to opt out of 401(k) participation. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor ensued—but it may have begun with the prior contractor rather than in response to Gomez’s complaints. Eagle was eventually ordered to pay for training and uniform costs.
Then, in May 2008, Gomez had his annual required physical exam and drug test. It’s not clear whether he was told that his initial drug test results were inconclusive, but a retest of the same sample came back positive for marijuana. Gomez’s supervisor testified in court that he told Gomez to have a new sample tested, at his own expense, in accordance with Eagle’s policy, but Gomez was not aware of those instructions. In any case, an Eagle official wrote him a termination letter, which his supervisor gave him.
Gomez sued, charging that the real reasons he was fired were national-origin discrimination and retaliation for his complaints to DOL and the Federal Aviation Administration. In particular, he charged that two other employees, neither of them Hispanic, had been given a chance to be retested, that his supervisor had repeatedly told him the Eagle ‘was out to get him’ because of his complaints, and that he had never been told that the original test result was inconclusive. That and other testimony, including that of his supervisor, was presented in federal district court.
What the court said. However unhappy Eagle management may have been about the complaints of Gomez and others, the district judge ruled that his drug test was indisputably the major reason Gomez was fired. So the termination stood, and Gomez’s case was dismissed. Torres v. Eagle Technologies, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, No. 8:09-cv-756-T-30EAJ (6/4/10).
Point to remember: As a contractor to the federal government in a job involving public safety, Eagle could not ignore a positive drug test.