Knox v. Knox: Decision and drug testing for public school employees: Why educators do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate, The

Journal of Law and Education, Oct 2000 by Orr, Ginger

Chalk Talk*

The Knox v. Knox1 Decision and Drug Testing for Public School Employees: Why Educators Do Not Shed Their Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate

I. Introduction

It is undisputed that educators have a profound effect on the lives of students they teach. Teachers and school administrators serve a variety of roles including those of parent, role model, and confidant. Professionals in the public education system are well-respected, trusted members of the community. Because educators play such an influential role in the lives of children, they should strive to be positive role models for those they instruct.

Teachers also have a daunting task in that they must ensure the safety of their students. Educators are often mediators of quarrels and instructors in times of emergency. With the apparent rise in school violence and student substance abuse, teachers also have to be conscious of hazardous behavior that could pose danger to their students. Because school officials have such an important responsibility, it is imperative that their physical and mental capabilities remain unimpaired while students are under their supervision.

Over the last decade, public school systems throughout the country have attempted to implement drug testing policies for educators. Most of these policies, put into place by local boards of education, have been struck down due to constitutional stumbling blocks dealing with privacy concerns. This article discusses the importance of drug testing policies for educators by analyzing the recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Knox v. Knox.2 The second part of this article lays the factual foundation of the Knox case and discusses Fourth Amendment issues as well as the Sixth Circuit's opinion. The article concludes by discussing the impact Knox will have on future drug-testing policies adopted by boards of education.

11. Background

In December of 1989, without evidence of a pronounced drug or alcohol problem among its teachers, the Knox County, Tennessee, Board of Education adopted what it called the "Drug Free Workplace Policy."3 The policy called for pre-employment drug and alcohol screening of job applicants and reasonable-suspicion testing for current employees. The board amended its initial policy in 1991 to provide greater protection for the privacy rights of employees shortly after the Knox County Board of Education and the Knox County Educational Association sought a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The injunction was based on the theory that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy issues. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee subsequently enjoined the enforcement of the amended policy. The board amended its policy again in 1992 to require all candidates for employment to submit to a urinalysis as a precondition to being hired. Pursuant to the reasonable-suspicion provision, any school employee was subject to such testing if the director of personnel believed the employee was under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on duty.4

The district court handed down its decision, known as Knox I, in 1994.5 The court found the pre-employment screening provision unconstitutional because it did not sufficiently describe the methods or procedures to be used in testing applicants. The provision also failed to adequately ensure protections for the privacy of individuals tested. The court decided to divide school employees into two groups. The first group included principals, assistant principals, teachers, traveling teachers, teachers aides, and school secretaries. Employees in this group were considered to have "safety-sensitive" positions, meaning that any lapse in their attention or judgment could immediately place the children under their care at risk for serious harm.6

The second group included superintendents, assistant superintendents, and clerks. The court found that members of this group did not occupy safety sensitive positions. The majority opinion determined that employees not occupying safety sensitive positions could not be subjected to the drug and alcohol policy because their immediate actions did not put the safety of students in jeopardy.7

The court also found the "reasonable suspicion" policy standard unconstitutional because it was not specific enough to protect the privacy rights of school employees. The policy violated the Fourth Amendment because it did not specify the kind of certification a drug-testing laboratory needed, nor the techniques and procedures to be used. Therefore, the policy failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.8

Acting in response to the district court's ruling, the board once again revised the policy and adopted a "Drug-Free Workplace Substance Abuse Policy" that permitted testing under two circumstances.9 Under the first, applicants for "safety sensitive" positions were subject to suspicionless testing. This category included principals, teachers, traveling teachers, teacher aides, substitute teachers, school secretaries, and school bus drivers. This category also included current employees who sought to transfer to a safety sensitive position. A candidate for a job transfer or a prospective new employee who tested positive on an initial screening for which there was no current medical prescription could be retested. If any subsequent test rendered a positive result, the job offer would be revoked.10