A SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES a phone call from an elementary school principal, asking for immediate in-person assistance. A 1st grader had just walked into the principal’s office, asking for someone to come to his classroom and “wake up our teacher.”

The principal responds immediately. Upon entering the classroom, he finds the teacher asleep on her desk, responsive but only somewhat coherent.

Rising Abuse
This is not a common personnel issue confronting school leaders, but its incidence does appear to be growing.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the education employment sector enjoys one of the lowest rates of on-the-job substance abuse among all workplace categories. While school leaders may find this reassuring, other data, produced by Quest Diagnostics, indicate substance abuse at work is on the rise and is now at its highest level since 2004. A survey of identified workplace substance abusers, conducted by the National Business Group on Health, indicated most had ingested their substance on the way to work.

Alcohol abuse is perhaps the most common problem, but opiates lead the way among drugs that show up on the job. In Kentucky, we are dealing with a severe opioid abuse issue, with a death rate almost twice the national average. And it is not uncommon to find opioids used in combination with antidepressants, alcohol and any number of illegal substances.

Addressing Incidents
Nearly all school districts have policies prohibiting employees from being impaired on the job. In addition, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol in public remains a criminal offense in many states. But beyond the routine prohibitions contained in law and policy lie the core issues that face the superintendent: how to recognize substance abuse and what to do about it when it occurs.

Federal courts and many state courts recognize the legal principle of “lay opinion” — that is, a competent layperson is capable of making a reasonable determination, based on evidence and inference, regarding many circumstances. Typically, assessing another person’s state of (or lack of) impairment is one of the areas in which this principle applies.

So as a matter of law, a school administrator generally has a reasonable basis to intervene in a circumstance where the facts at his or her disposal reasonably indicate that a school employee may be impaired on the job. Factors such as demeanor, appearance, motor skills, speech, coherence and even odor are within the scope of reasonable assessments that may be made by a lay person.

Choosing a Path
Once the impairment is verified, what type of intervention is appropriate? The facts of the situation certainly influence the decision about what to do next. If the impairment is severe, medical personnel may need to be summoned. If public intoxication is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction, it may call for involvement of a school resource officer or other law enforcement personnel.

In less severe cases, isolating the employee or simply seeing that he or she gets home safely may be an appropriate response.

Board of education policies and contractual provisions may have a bearing upon the response as well. Mandatory drug testing may be an option or even a leave of absence with no immediate intervention. Always examine local governance documents and employee handbooks for guidance.

Dual Protections
Understandably, most incidents of on-the-job impairment will result in discipline for the employee, enrollment in a treatment program or both. In terms of potential safety risks and legal liability, school districts can ill-afford to leave a problem of employee substance abuse unaddressed.

But it is always important to keep in mind that the abuser is at-risk as well and that removing the curse of addiction from the employee’s life is as valuable as protecting students and co-workers from its damage.


WAYNE YOUNG, an education lawyer, is the retired executive director of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators in Frankfort, Ky.