Rights of the falsely accused?

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyguys

A federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a public employer's termination of a "safety-sensitive" employee who refused to submit to a random drug test. The Court of Appeals concluded that the random drug test did not violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue? I dunno. Let me break that down and translate your own post for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyguys

A federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a public employer's termination of a "safety-sensitive" employee who refused to submit to a random drug test. .

Meaning the court sided with the boss, employer, the man. NOT THE EMPLOYEE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyguys

The Court of Appeals concluded that the random drug test did not violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

This means their decision in the case was that IT DID NOT NOT NOT NEGATIVE, NO, NOT VIOLATE THE EMPLOYEE'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

So maybe you don't understand.
I am done, you obviously do not get it, and will not be able to comprehend or understand what you are being told. Obviously, and I will not waste another second on you.:i feel stupid::i feel stupid::i feel stupid:

Good luck as you attempt to alter the space time continuim and create a parellel universe around you!:thumbsup:
I doubt that any employer would need to get a positive on a UA to term you from the way your posts sound.