Legal Opinion
Hartness v. Bush
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 23, 1989No. Civ. A. 89-044-LFO, 89-0950-LFO and 89-1152-LFOPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
OBERDORFER, District Judge.
I
Various civilian employees of the federal government and a labor union have sued to enjoin government testing of employees’ urine now scheduled to begin on or after May 24, 1989. Three cases brought by or on behalf of employees in the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”), Hartness v. Bush, and in the General Services Administration (“GSA”), AFGE v. Austin and LaBella v. Austin, are now before the Court on motions for preliminary injunction pending a decision on the merits.
The defendants in these cases adopted the plans at issue in obedience to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Department of the Navy v. EganSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. RobelSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Norman Hartness v. George Bush, President of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- Burka v. New York City Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- American Federation of Government Employees v. CavazosDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1989
- National Treasury Employees Union v. WatkinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1989
- National Treasury Employees Union v. HallettDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.