The Commonwealth Court recently upheld the termination of a tenured teacher who had contested his termination on the grounds of an unreasonable search under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In Metz v. Bethlehem Area School District, the teacher had been employed as a tenured physical education teacher when the school district received proof of a positive drug test result for cocaine metabolites.
The drug test conclusions were the result of a custody battle and related court-ordered test. When asked by the school district to submit to a drug test, the teacher refused and was placed on unpaid suspension. The teacher finally did agree to a urinalysis test and, consistent with results from his custody proceedings, he again tested positive for cocaine metabolites.
The teacher was offered a Loudermill Hearing, which he waived, and was then charged with willful neglect of duty and immorality in violation of the Pennsylvania School Code and School District policy.
At his termination hearing, he stated that he had never used drugs at work, came to work impaired or was convicted of any drug-related offense. He did, however, admit to ingesting cocaine at a Super Bowl party. His testing history indicated ten negative results, but one positive result.
Based upon school district testimony of community standards and the teacher’s indifference of the effect regarding his conduct in relation to those standards, the District elected to terminate the teacher. The termination was affirmed by the Secretary of Education.
The teacher appealed, raising Constitutional violation claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court dismissed the teacher’s claim, which was analyzed against the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion in light of the totality of the circumstances instead of the standard of probable cause.
Relying upon federal case law, the Commonwealth Court noted that where information obtained from an informant, the court reviewed three factors: (1) the informant’s veracity; (2) the reliability of the information; and (3) the informant’s basis of knowledge.
Using this standard, the Court held that under these facts, reasonable suspicion for a drug test existed and upheld the teacher’s dismissal.
Bottom Line for Schools
The School District’s success in this case is a reminder that even the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion requires underlying facts that support the veracity, reliability, and source of information. Information that cannot be traced to a reliable source will likely not support reasonable suspicion.
School Law Bullets are a publication of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. They are meant to be informational and do not constitute legal advice. John E. Freund, III, is our editor.
