According to the Legal Action Center of New York City, the courts have decided less than a dozen cases involving urine monitoring to date. Court challenges of workplace drug and alcohol screening have used the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as grounds for legal action. Many of these cases are currently under appeal. In a number of cases, the courts have found urine screening of employees to be illegal. These cases include McDonnell v. Hunter, brought by three Iowa Department of Corrections employees; City of Palm Bay v. Bauman, brought by police officers and firefighters in a Florida city; Patchogue-Medford Congress of teachers v. Board of Education, challenging pre-promotion testing of teachers applying for tenure; Anable v. Ford, brought by high school students in Arkansas challenging the testing technology; and Odenheim v. Carlstadt East Rutherford Regional School District, brought by New Jersey high school students alleging the tests were being used as a means of controlling student behavior. In a number of other cases, the courts ruled in favor of urine drug screening. These include Division 241 Amalgamated Transit Union v. Suscy, upholding the Chicago Transit Authority's ability to require bus drivers to submit to testing; Allen v. City of Marietta, in which the court upheld the dismissal of several employees who worked around high voltage electric wires and tested positive; and Railway Labor Executives Association v. Dole, requiring testing of individuals when supervisors suspect they are impaired. A brief description is provided of the chemical tests used, including thin layer chromatography, 6 gas chromatography, gas chromatography mass spectrometer, and radioimmunoassay.