Laserfiche WebLink
that decision. <br />August 22, 1990, Appellant made a written agreement in <br />consideration of City conditionally reinstating him. The agreement <br />provided that his continued employment was expressly contingent on <br />his abstinence from drug use and/or intoxication while on duty. <br />It also provided that he consented to random testing of his urine <br />for drugs or their metabolites. <br />Tuesday, September 4, 1990, a regular work day, <br />Appellant submitted a urine sample for drug testing. The test was <br />regularly conducted by competent professional personnel. The test <br />result was a finding that the drugs Amphetamine and Methamphetamine <br />were detected. Appellant's urine contained a substantial quantity <br />of such drugs on September 4, 1990. These drugs are prohibited <br />except by prescription. The test result establishes that after <br />making the agreement, August 22, 1990, Appellant violates it. It <br />is a fact that September 4, 1990, while on duty, Appellant tested <br />positive for drugs. The drugs detected in the urine sample taken <br />September 4, 1990, had been ingested by Appellant within four days <br />of the date of the test. The positive result of the test was not <br />due to drugs ingested prior to the agreement made August 22, 1990. <br />Attached are Notice of Termination, dated August 7, 1990 <br />and Notice of Disciplinary Action, dated September 21, 1990. <br />Appellant received copies of these notices on or about those dates. <br />Appellant failed to deny the allegations of fact in these notices. <br />He did not deny any of them in his response to thein. Appellant did <br />