A Lane Transit District bus driver was reinstated in September after a panel ruled that he was unjustly fired.
John Gelsomino was fired in August 2024 for failing to complete a drug test in order to return from medical leave. But instead of the standard drug test that is typically required, Lane Transit District (LTD) told Gelsomino to take a much more intrusive test in which a testing employee watched him while he tried to urinate.
A year later, a panel of two LTD administrators and two union members unanimously voted to reinstate Gelsomino.
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 757 said directing Gelsomino to take the more intrusive test — and then firing him when he couldn’t complete it instead of giving him another chance to take it — was retaliation from LTD management.
Gelsomino had worked for LTD nearly 18 years when he was fired. He had previously served as a union officer, filed a complaint against a supervisor, and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
John Gangl, a union officer for ATU Local 757’s LTD unit, said he believes Gelsomino was fired “to set an example to other employees who have filed complaints against supervisors and used protected leave.” Gangl and Mike Funderburk, the top union officer for the unit, said there’s a history of retaliation by LTD managers — though improvements have been made in recent months since LTD contracted with a new human resources company. At least three other LTD employees were improperly directed to take the observed drug test, the union said. A female bus driver submitted written testimony to the panel that heard Gelsomino’s case, describing how violating the process felt. That driver wrote that she was “completely humiliated, embarrassed, and deeply disrespected” by LTD and the testing company. “I feel that LTD was hoping I would deny the observed drug test so they could fire me,” she wrote, describing an incident before the drug test in which LTD managers presented her with a resignation document during what she thought was a meeting about steps for her return to work.
“These people were forced to disrobe in front of a complete stranger in order to keep their job — because they had both filed complaints against supervisors,” Gangl said.
ATU Local 757 filed a grievance after Gelsomino was fired, but it took nearly a year to make it through the grievance process, which ended with the panel’s verdict.
Gangl said LTD tried to drag out the process as long as they could “to ensure it caused economic hardship.”
“There was a lot of malice in the entire process,” Gangl said.
Before Gelsomino was fired, he was out on medical leave due to a shoulder injury but was trying to return to work while awaiting surgery. With his injuries, he was unable to find other work after being fired, and he fell behind on rent and bills. When the single father found out the panel had voted to reinstate him, he burst into tears, relieved to be finally headed back to his job. But he said he still fears retaliation.
The drug test
Under federal regulations, bus drivers are subject to drug and alcohol tests before starting their job, then randomly while working, and again after being out of the random drug test pool for an extended period, like returning after medical leave. The test is typically non-observed, meaning the driver goes to a testing facility and is directed to collect a urine sample in a bathroom alone. If a driver fails a drug test, is evaluated by a substance abuse professional, and then is permitted to return to work, they have to pass a “return-to-duty” drug test, which involves an observer watching them strip down and urinate.
“Return-to-duty” could sound like the applicable test to people outside the industry, but the union said the federal government has issued guidance to transit agencies on how to make sure the appropriate test is given.
In 18 years with LTD, Gelsomino had never tested positive for drugs, he and Gangl said.
“Obviously with somebody standing over me, staring at my genitals, I was shy. I was having a hard time going,” Gelsomino said. When he couldn’t produce a sample quickly enough, the observer told Gelsomino to go drink some water and return in a few minutes.
While out in the lobby, Gelsomino received a phone call and stepped outside to answer. When he returned, he was told he was no longer eligible to take the test because he had left the lobby. He informed his employer and his union. Gelsomino even took a drug test that same day, at the suggestion of union officers who he contacted as he was leaving the drug testing site, Gangl said.
Still, LTD called him in and terminated him on the grounds that he refused to take the test.
