The State Personnel Board convened on September 14 to hear arguments in Jackson Lund’s appeal against his dismissal by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The central issue revolved around whether a positive marijuana test, occurring during the process of obtaining a commercial driver’s license (CDL), provided sufficient grounds for his termination before he had secured a Class A license or commenced any safety-sensitive work.
According to the meeting summary, the Department of Water Resources contended that federal CDL and drug-testing regulations became applicable to Lund once he entered the official licensing process. From DWR's perspective, this initiation of the licensing procedure meant that Lund's subsequent positive drug test legally supported his immediate dismissal from employment.
Conversely, Lund’s counsel presented a differing interpretation of the regulations. His representative argued that the federal rules cited by DWR had not yet fully applied to Lund at the specific stage he was in during the licensing process. Furthermore, Lund's counsel highlighted that the marijuana use which led to the positive test occurred during off-duty hours and predated his official start of employment. The defense also pointed to internal department materials, which, according to Lund’s counsel, outlined potential pathways for a last-chance opportunity or rehabilitation for employees, rather than an automatic and immediate termination for such an incident.
Beyond the primary dispute over the applicability of federal rules and the justification for termination, the State Personnel Board also delved into a related procedural matter. Discussions included whether Lund had been properly informed or put on notice that a positive drug test occurring within the first 90 days of employment would result in discharge. This aspect of the discussion suggests a focus on the clarity and communication of DWR’s internal policies regarding drug testing during an employee's initial probationary or early employment period.
Following the comprehensive presentation of these contrasting arguments and the ensuing deliberations, the State Personnel Board took the matter under submission. This indicates that a final decision regarding Lund’s appeal will be rendered at a later, unspecified date, after further review by the board members.
This personnel appeal was one of several items addressed during the State Personnel Board's September 14 meeting. The board's agenda for that day also included the routine approval of various administrative matters and a separate appeal concerning the contracting-out of services for prison health care work, highlighting the diverse range of cases the board handles.
