If you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, is there anything you can do about it?  This case involved new regulations requiring certain transportation workers, such as those involved in aviation, to submit to observed urine tests where somebody watches during the procedure.  Also those taking the tests have to raise their shirts and lower their clothing to prove the urine they’re submitting is really theirs.  After the workers sued, the Court acknowledged that direct observation testing is highly intrusive but ruled the regulations are necessary because of products that exist for the adulteration of urine, including a prosthetic device that is a dead ringer for real human anatomy, including being color matched.  The Court noted that undercover federal investigators regularly managed to adulterate their urine specimens and the inference that people were using cheating devices was eminently reasonable.  So when you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, you’re in plain view all around.  Let’s just call it a case of peer review.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

BNSF Railway Company v. Department of Transportation, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-1264, May 15, 2009, Tatel, J., U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 45 Pg. 1721, 5-26-09

Podcast: Download