82 Va. Cir. 160
Chesapeake Cir. Ct.2011Background
- Workman, a prison security captain, was terminated after a second oral-swab drug test yielded marijuana positive results.
- The first test (January 2009) was negative/dilute and considered within the testing program; retesting followed policy after negative/dilute results.
- An audit later revealed Workman had not received a follow-up test, prompting an additional oral-fluid test on April 13, 2009.
- The April test produced a positive result, leading to termination on April 15, 2009 and subsequent agency reviews and appeals.
- The court addresses whether the second test violated the Fourth Amendment and whether the decision is “contrary to law,” with due-process arguments largely abandoned by Workman.
- The court ultimately reverses the agency decision on Fourth Amendment grounds without addressing broader administrative-law questions
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second test violated the Fourth Amendment | Workman contends the follow-up test lacked reasonable suspicion | Workman’s employer argues the follow-up was a permissible extension of testing | Yes; second test violated the Fourth Amendment and the termination was contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Barton, 39 Va. App. 439 (2002) (establishes review for “contradictory to law” under § 2.2-3006(B))
- Commonwealth v. Needham, 55 Va. App. 316 (2009) (discusses scope of appellate review in Virginia)
- Virginia Dep’t of Transp. v. Stevens, 53 Va. App. 654 (2009) (clarifies limited nature of factual/procedural review)
- Tatum v. Virginia Dep’t of Agric. and Consumer Servs., 41 Va. App. 110 (2003) (cites Barton framework for review)