9 Investigates: Seminole County employee says he was fired after questionable drug test

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. — 9 Investigates a Seminole County employee who was fired after a random drug test is fighting back after an audit found that the county might have violated federal law with the test.
 
About 70 solid waste employees were tested in February after county leaders received a "credible report" of abuse. Edward Korgan said he can't explain why he tested positive for cocaine, but did tell Eyewitness News he's on a host of medications.
 
Korgan was fired and is disputing the results of the test. According to a clerk's office audit, the way the test was given might have violated federal privacy laws.
 
Korgan said the positive reading came after he was forced to give three different samples because of a medical condition related to past bladder and prostate cancers, for which he still takes the medications.
 
"My medical condition has been for going on (for) five years. I've taken a few drug tests and this is the first time there was no temperature reading," Korgan said.
 
He was told that the low temperature of his urine sample meant that he would have to provide a second sample under the direct supervision of another coworker in the restroom stall.
 
A third sample had to be given under the direct supervision of a female lab tech. Korgan said it was "weird" and "embarrassing."
 
"(They had) to view me and watch me put the sample from my person into the cup," Korgan said.
 
The audit said that had the test been done in a laboratory facility, the medical issue would not have been disclosed.
 
The county insisted that all testing was done within Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act guidelines.
 
"It was like my hands were handcuffed. If you refuse the test, then it's a refusal, which is considered a positive," Korgan said.
 
Korgan is appealing his firing and seeking the help of an attorney.

The county said in an email to Channel 9:

"On February 25, 2016, the day of the testing, Mr. Korgan provided a sample that measured out of the acceptable temperature range. Pursuant to drug testing protocols, the lab technician from the company which the county has contracted with for testing, notified Mr. Korgan that a second sample would need to be collected and that it would have to be an observed sample. The female lab technician explained to County HR staff that the observer would  need to be a male because at this time, it was thought that the employee would be required to disrobe (protocol for observation), neither the lab technician nor HR staff were aware of his medical condition. For this reason, the female lab technician asked Mr. Korgan if he was comfortable having a fellow male employee who was waiting to be tested serve as the observer. Mr. Korgan consented to having the fellow employee serve as the observer, replying, “Not at all. I have no problem with it”.

"The second sample also came back unusable due to temperature out of range. Mr. Korgan then went to his supervisor’s office and after a few minutes the supervisor requested that a member of the HR staff join him and Mr. Korgan in his office as Mr. Korgan wanted to tell her something. At that time, Mr. Korgan revealed to the HR staff person in front of his supervisor and another employee of his medical condition that may be causing the temperature to be out of range.

"Upon learning of Mr. Korgan’s medical condition, the lab technician followed the U.S. Dept. of Transportation guidelines for testing protocols related to this specific medical condition. These protocols required a third sample in the presence of the lab technician, because the employee would not be required to disrobe, the gender of lab technician was irrelevant. The protocols also specify that the procedure does not have to be done in a medical environment/health clinic. If the employee asks, the request may be considered if it does not delay the process. In this instance, no such request was ever made by Mr. Korgan. In fact, the lab technician asked if he was embarrassed or uncomfortable, to which he answered “no”, and said he did not care if the lab technician observed the collection."

Cox Media Group