Order

Pending before the court is Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses [Docket 180].  Class Counsel1 seeks a fee award equivalent to 25% of the Settlement Fund of approximately $50 million.  Class Counsel also seeks $91,883.50 for out-of-pocket expenses and a $25,000 incentive award for each named Class Representative.

Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order¹

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff West Virginians for Life’s (WVFL) Motion for Preliminary Injunction2 [Docket 112], Plaintiff Center for Individual Freedom, Inc.’s (CFIF) Emergency Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket 90], Intervenor Defendant Margaret L. Workman’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 99], Defendant Betty Ireland’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 103] and Motion to Strike [Docket 105], and WVFL’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket 106].  The Court will address each motion in turn.

Memorandum Opinion

The Kanawha County School Board adopted a revised drug testing policy mandating the random testing of teachers and other categories of public school employees.  The teachers’ unions have joined forces in this lawsuit seeking to enjoin the implementation of that policy on constitutional and privacy grounds.  The questions before the court are whether the random drug testing policy adopted by the Board as a state actor violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution, and the right to privacy as it is recognized in this state.  The evidence does not demonstrate either that these employees have a reduced expectation of privacy by virtue of their employment in a public school or that there is a special governmental need to guard against a concrete risk of great harm.  I therefore find that because the safety justification offered by the Board does not outweigh the privacy interests of the school employees, the Board may not abandon the Fourth Amendment’s protection against suspicionless searches.  Consequently, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and I preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the random drug testing policy.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket 188].  The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of people allegedly harmed by C-8 contamination of their drinking water supply.  The plaintiffs have presented compelling evidence that exposure to C-8 may be harmful to human health, and the evidence certainly justifies the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs in this case.   What the plaintiffs misunderstand, however, is what they must show in order for me to certify the class.  I cannot certify a class based on some potential harm to the general public, rather, there must be specific injuries to each member of the proposed class.  The fact that a public health risk may exist is more than enough to raise concern in the community and call government agencies to action, but it does not show the common individual injuries needed to certify a class action.  For the reasons set forth below, this court FINDS that the proposed class does not satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The motion is DENIED.