1 / 13

Skinner v. railway labor Executives' Association

March 12, 1989 Washington, D.C. Skinner v. railway labor Executives' Association. Background. In 1985, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopted regulations addressing the problem of alcohol and drug use among railroad employees

edan-pitts
Download Presentation

Skinner v. railway labor Executives' Association

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. March 12, 1989 Washington, D.C. Skinner v. railway labor Executives' Association

  2. Background • In 1985, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopted regulations addressing the problem of alcohol and drug use among railroad employees • This was the direct result of at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or drug use

  3. Background (Cont.) • These accidents resulted in 25 deaths • The Railway Labor Executives’ Association filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to forbid these regulations • After going through the district court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the case was then heard by the U.S. Supreme Court

  4. Samuel K. Skinner, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Petitioner

  5. Railway Labor Executives’ Association Respondents

  6. Richard Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

  7. Lawrence M. Mann Chief Lawyer for Respondents

  8. Justices for the Court • Harry A. Blackmun • Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the court) • Sandra Day O'Connor • William H. Rehnquist • Antonin Scalia • John Paul Stevens • Byron R. White

  9. Petitioner’s Claim • That regulations requiring the testing of bodily fluids after a train accident do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of railroad employees

  10. Fourth Amendment • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  11. Decision • Upheld regulations that required railroads to test urine, blood, and breath of employees involved in train accidents, deciding that such tests did not violate the Fourth Amendment • Voted 2-7 in favor of the Petitioner

  12. Personal Opinion • I agree with the decision to uphold the regulations to test bodily fluids after a train accident because railroad employees should not be under the influence of anything while operating a train due to the many dangers involved with them

  13. THE END

More Related