Schoenfield v. County of Humboldt

Parentheticals

• finding that the Army has a compelling safety interest in randomly drug testing its civilian employees who fly and service its airplanes and helicopters, who are civilian police and guards, and who are involved in drug interdiction

  American Federation of Teachers v. Kanawha County Board of Education

• reduced privacy expectations by requirement to report any illness or incident resulting from use of prescription drugs

  Catherine Tanks v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

• privacy expectations of security guards reduced because they are already subjected to extensive medical examinations and background checks

  International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Western Conference of Teamsters v. Department of Transportation

• privacy expectations of security guards reduced because they are already subjected to extensive medical examinations and background checks

  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

• "[R]elease of [employee's names and home addresses] would violate the Privacy Act"

  United States Department of the Navy, Navy Exchange, Naval Training Station, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, Federal Labor Relations Authority v. United States Department of the Navy, Navy Exchange, Naval Training Station, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois

• pre-employment screenings and medical tests lower reasonable privacy expectations of Army civilian guards

  AMERICAN FED. OF GOV. EMPLOYEES v. Barr

• pre-employment screenings and medical tests lower reasonable privacy expectations of Army civilian guards

  American Federation of Government Employees, Council 33 v. Barr

• “[RJelease of [employee’s names and home addresses] would violate the Privacy Act”

  United States Department of Navy v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

• civilian Department of Defense police and guards

  Plane v. United States

• testing of army civilian police

  McCloskey v. Honolulu Police Department