National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, Case

For this assignment, choose two of the three cases listed below and thoroughly answer all case questions that appear after the case in your textbook. Internet research is encouraged if applicable for better content. Please use APA citation. For more guidance, please see the grading rubrics located on the Assignments and Grading page in the Course Information Module. Please limit your comments to 450 words per case (a maximum of 900 total words). National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, Case

Questions 1. An approved drug use test must be conducted within reasonable parameters. In Capua, the court determined that a urine collection process may not be reasonable if “done under close surveillance of a government representative [as it] is likely to be a very embarrassing and humiliating experience.” Courts will generally balance the employee’s rights against the employer’s stated basis for the test and determine whether the cause of the test is reasonable and substantial. For instance, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., the Supreme Court stated that the railway employees had a reduced expectation of privacy due to the highly regulated nature of the industry. In addition, societal interests, such as safety and security of the railways, may outweigh the individual employee’s privacy interests. When might this be the case?

2. Why do you think the Court made a distinction between positions involving contact with drugs and firearms and positions that require handling of classified materials? EEOC v. Consolidated Service System Case Questions 1. If the court in Consolidated ruled that, even though the statistics told another story, there was no evidence of “intentional” discrimination, would an unbalanced workforce due to word-of-mouth recruiting alone ever constitute disparate treatment? 2. Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small, all-white firm, recruiting was done only using word of mouth and this effort resulted in only white applicants. Would your decision remain the same? 3. If this case were tried as a disparate impact case, as discussed by the court, how would you balance the advantages of word-of-mouth recruiting against the possibility of a discriminatory impact?