Reasonable Suspicion After Return-to-Duty
An operator completed a substance abuse professional (SAP) evaluation after a positive marijuana test and has returned with a negative return-to-duty test and a SAP report clearing him for safety-sensitive duty. He is assigned to a 6:00 a.m. route. At 5:40 a.m., a dispatcher smells marijuana on his clothing and reports it to you. The operator says he attended a party the night before, did not use the drug, and that his clothing absorbed smoke. Your agency is subject to 49 CFR Part 655 and Part 40. The collective bargaining agreement requires just cause for discipline and allows union representation at investigatory meetings. State law permits recreational marijuana. The operator has 11 years of service and no prior violations. He is already in the random testing pool and was tested negative three weeks ago. The dispatcher is not trained in reasonable-suspicion testing, but you are.
1. Can you remove the operator from safety-sensitive duty and send him for testing? Outline the legal and procedural basis.
Read the worked answer
Yes, remove him from safety-sensitive duty and require a reasonable-suspicion test, but follow the Part 655 and Part 40 procedure exactly.
- The basis is not the odor alone. As a trained supervisor, document specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations: the dispatcher's report, the operator's appearance, speech, coordination, and any admission. If odor is the only indicator, have a second trained supervisor assess before ordering the test, and record that.
- Remove him from the driving assignment immediately pending the result; do not let him operate or perform other safety-sensitive functions. Arrange transportation home; do not leave him unsupervised if impairment is suspected.
- Send him for the test under the agency's reasonable-suspicion protocol, using the required custody-and-control form and a qualified collector. A return-to-duty test and SAP clearance do not immunize an employee from a new reasonable-suspicion test. State recreational-marijuana law does not override the federal prohibition for safety-sensitive transit employees.
- Keep the reason confidential. Notify the designated employee representative or union as required by the CBA, and give the operator the opportunity to document rebuttal information.
- If the lab result is negative, return him to duty without discipline and document the outcome. If positive, the MRO and SAP process governs; do not impose discipline before that process runs.
2. What are the main pitfalls in handling this as a disciplinary matter, and what process do you follow?
Read the worked answer
Pitfalls and process.
- Do not treat the dispatcher's odor report as a positive test. An untrained dispatcher can report observations, but the trained supervisor must make the reasonable-suspicion determination. Relying on odor alone invites a grievance and may violate Part 40.
- Do not skip the union and just-cause step. The CBA requires just cause and representation at an investigatory meeting; offer representation before questioning him about drug use. Limit questions to fitness for duty and the observations, not a confession.
- Do not discipline for the prior positive again. He completed the SAP and return-to-duty process; a new violation must follow the new testing process. Double discipline for the same conduct is a classic arbitration loss.
- Protect confidentiality. Do not tell the dispatcher, coworkers, or any social-media group the test result. Release information only on a need-to-know basis.
- Address the real risk: train dispatchers and supervisors on reasonable suspicion, keep a checklist, and audit whether the process is applied consistently across shifts and employees. If the test is negative, a brief fitness-for-duty conversation and a reminder about the agency's drug-free workplace policy is appropriate, but not punishment. Document every step.