Washington v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County
847 F.3d 1192
10th Cir.2017Background
- Roberick Washington was a juvenile lieutenant at Wyandotte County Juvenile Detention Center and sometimes performed floor-duty, supervised officers, drove juveniles, filled in for absent lieutenants, and responded to fights.
- Wyandotte County’s random drug-testing policy covered employees in “safety sensitive” positions and expressly listed “juvenile lieutenant”; failure to pass a test could lead to discharge.
- In 2012 Washington’s random urine test (and a confirmatory test) was positive for cocaine; Sheriff Ash terminated him per policy; Washington exhausted internal appeals and requested additional hearings which were denied.
- Washington sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) unreasonable search (Fourth Amendment), (2) deprivation of property without due process, (3) deprivation of liberty (name-clearing hearing), and (4) state-law breach of implied contract for reinstatement and back pay.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether random, suspicionless urinalysis was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search | Washington: testing violated probable-cause/warrant requirements; his duties were mainly administrative so he wasn’t a safety-sensitive target | County: special-needs doctrine applies because juvenile lieutenants have access to and duty to protect at-risk juveniles and facility security; random testing is effective | Held: Test was reasonable under special-needs balancing; County interest in safety/welfare outweighed diminished privacy; affirmed summary judgment |
| Whether Washington had a protected property interest in continued employment under Kansas law | Washington: personnel policies, HR Guide, and grievance procedure created an implied contract or limited discharge authority | County: Kansas public employment is at-will; written policies expressly preserve at-will status and do not fix duration or restrict discharge | Held: No property interest; policies insufficient to alter at-will status; summary judgment for County affirmed |
| Whether Washington was entitled to a name-clearing (liberty) hearing | Washington: termination and public adverse action damaged reputation and entitled him to a hearing | Defendants: pretrial order framed only a property claim; plaintiff offered only conclusory allegations of reputational harm and no showing process was inadequate | Held: No viable liberty-interest showing; district court did not abuse discretion; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether County breached an implied contract under state law | Washington: County policies created an implied contract entitling reinstatement/back pay | County: Policies expressly preserve at-will employment and grievance procedure does not create substantive limits on discharge | Held: No implied contract; summary judgment for County affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Solid Waste Dep’t Mechanics v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068 (10th Cir.) (special-needs framework for suspicionless workplace drug testing)
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (balancing student privacy against school interests; diminished privacy and minimal intrusion in urine testing)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Exec. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (government’s safety-regulation interest can justify warrantless drug testing of safety-sensitive employees)
- United States Dep’t of Treasury v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (compelling government interest in drug testing employees in roles implicating public safety)
- Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) (probable-cause principle and limits on suspicionless drug testing absent a special need)
- Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir.) (features and limits of the special-needs doctrine)