American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 79 v. Rick Scott
717 F.3d 851
11th Cir.2013Background
- Governor Scott issued Executive Order 11-58 mandating random suspicionless drug testing of all 85,000 state employees and pre-employment testing of applicants.
- Union sued in district court, initially facially challenging the EO but later argued for as-applied relief limited to non-safety-sensitive employees.
- District court granted summary judgment for Union, invalidated the EO, and enjoined testing of all current 85,000 state employees without tailoring to job categories.
- State appealed, arguing the EO is constitutional as applied to all employees and that relief should be reversed, or at least narrowed.
- Court of Appeals vacates and remands, holding the district court’s relief was facial or quasi-facial in scope and not properly tailored to job categories; requires job-category-by-category analysis on remand.
- Statutory background: prior DFWA limited testing to safety-sensitive positions or suspicion-based contexts; 2012 amendments expanded random testing, aligning with EO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relief was facial or as-applied and properly tailored | Union contends relief limited to non-safety-sensitive groups. | State contends EO can be applied broadly to all employees. | Relief was facial/overbroad; must tailor by job category on remand |
| Whether the EO could be constitutionally applied to any current employee without individualized suspicion | Union relies on Skinner balancing; some groups may be tested with safety-sensitivity. | State claims broad public-safety rationale justifies testing all employees. | Cannot uphold across-the-board testing; need job-category-by-job-category analysis |
| Burden-shifting and whether consent or general safety needs justify testing | Consent from employment does not render testing reasonable; Skinner factors required. | Consent and workplace efficiency argue for broad testing. | Consent alone insufficient; must show genuine special needs per Skinner |
| Whether the district court properly vacated and remanded for tailored relief | Narrow tailoring could remedy constitutional defects. | Remand unnecessary if statewide validity could be shown. | Vacate and remand for job-category-by-category tailoring |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (suspicionless testing for safety-sensitive railroad employees permissible)
- Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1989) (highlighted job-category-specific impairments and testing rationale)
- Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1997) (rejected broad, generic safety justifications for blanket testing)
- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1995) (school context with special needs allowing testing of student athletes)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (S. Ct. 2010) (salient discussion on distinguishing facial vs. as-applied challenges)
- Lebron v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 710 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2013) (consent in welfare context not dispositive; skinner analysis governs)
- GeorgiaCarry.Org., Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (Salerno 'no set of circumstances' standard applied to facial challenges)