Black Police Officers in Boston Sue Department, Alleging Racial Bias in Drug-Related Dismissals

AP ^ | AP-ES-07-27-05 1208EDT

[TheOtherOne]

Black Police Officers in Boston Sue Department, Alleging Racial Bias in Drug-Related Dismissals
The Associated Press
Published: Jul 27, 2005 BOSTON (AP) - Seven black police officers who were fired after failing a drug test that relied on hair samples have sued the police department, alleging the screening method is racially biased.

The officers were fired between 2002 and 2004 after they tested positive for cocaine. Members of the force are tested each year.

The officers' lawyer, Rheba Rutkowski, who filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Suffolk Superior Court, said the test results can be skewed by the texture of black people's hair, and by certain hair-care products.

"African-American hair is different from white hair because, among other things, it is coarser and thicker," Rutkowski said. "In fact, those properties make it far more likely to yield a false positive on a hair test than white hair."

Police spokesman Michael McCarthy wouldn't comment Wednesday on the fired officers' claims, saying the department hasn't been officially notified of the suit.

The drug testing program has been in place since 1999, McCarthy said.

If officers fail the hair test, they can agree to enter a rehabilitation program and are then subject to random urine tests. Several of the plaintiffs refused to participate in such a program.

The company that conducts the drug tests for the department, Psychemedics Corp. of Acton, said it has had no complaints from any of its hundreds of clients.

Last year, the U.S. Transportation Department and the Pentagon said they would not use hair, saliva or sweat tests for federal workers because they were concerned about fairness.

The seven officers want their jobs back and their names cleared, Rutkowski said.

"They also want compensation for everything they have lost, including damages for having lost their reputations," she said. "They also want this practice to stop."

AP-ES-07-27-05 1208EDT

[Spok]

"African-American hair is different from white hair...more likely to yield a false positive on a hair test than white hair."

It sounds like their complaint is really about the testing methodology, not racism. Or is that too logical?

[printhead]

I think it's that the white cops showed positive for striaght coke and the black cops showed positive for crack.

[pabianice]

"African-American hair is different from white hair because, among other things, it is coarser and thicker," Rutkowski said. "In fact, those properties make it far more likely to yield a false positive on a hair test than white hair."

[TKDietz]

They can't tell from these drug tests whether a person used crack or regular powdered cocaine, or chewed coca leaves for that matter. It will all show up the same and the test report will show the person tested positive for cocaine.

[uncbob]

Wonder if the test can detect Liquid drugs

[Americanexpat]

They didn't say how many white or Hispanic cops were fired for the same. I thought they did this through urine samples?

My partner and I were investigating black market violations in a military commissary in Panama once. My partner spotted a display of coffee on sale. This coffee was only made in Columbia and was not cleared for export. Everyone loved this coffee. I guess the traces of cocaine in it were the reason why. Lots of senior officers and NCOs showed up positive on the unit urinalysis. I often wonder how many careers went down the urinals over that.

[TheOtherOne]

They didn't say how many white or Hispanic cops were fired for the same. I thought they did this through urine samples?

My guess would be that 'evidence' of drug use stays in the hair for a longer period of time. So if they are testing the officers just once a year, maybe they figured it would test for more than 'recent' drug use. That is just a guess.

As for people who unknowingly ingest a controlled substance, I would hope there was ways to avoid treating them as drug users, but I am not sure how.

[Grut]

As for people who unknowingly ingest a controlled substance, I would hope there was ways to avoid treating them as drug users, but I am not sure how.

Easy enough, you just fire everybody who tests positive, without worrying about how they got that way. 'Testing positive' is a fireable offense in itself. This really is how the military used to do it, and still may.

[TKDietz]

I don't know that these hair tests are reliable. Results from them are not accepted in courts like those from urine tests are. In fact hair testing has been labeled unreliable by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Society of Forensic Toxicologists and the Food and Drug Administration. There are complaints that evidence stays longer in black people's hair, but also that false positives are more likely with black people because their hair is coarse and much more likely to pick up and retain drugs or smoke or residue from drugs that come in contact with it. It is possible I would imagine that these officers came in physical contact with people who had been handling drugs or have been in a room where people had just been smoking crack. They are police officers after all and they probably run into drug users and dealers several times a day.

[Drew68]

I thought they did this through urine samples?

That's how it is done in the military. Hair sample tests are only used in rare circumstances. Hair sample testing (I've been told) is very expensive compared to a urinalysis.