Commissioner clarifies authority to require medical examinations of school employees

On Board Online • December 19, 2016

By Jay Worona
Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel

School boards in New York State may require any employee to submit to a medical or psychiatric exam to determine the individual's physical and/or mental fitness for duty. The commissioner of education recently considered a case in which a school principal claimed that such a requirement would violate her privacy rights.

In Appeal of P.P. from Action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Auburn, the commissioner upheld the district's actions and dismissed the principal's appeal. The decision provides school districts with a helpful review of what constitutes the parameters of school district authority to require medical examinations of school teachers and principals.

In this case, a tenured building principal was transferred to a position in which her office was located in the basement of one of the district's buildings. Soon after starting her new position, she began to experience symptoms which included "congestion, chronic sinus headaches, shortness of breath, chest pressure, etc." The principal said that she believed that her condition was caused by the building environment.

The school district provided the principal with an office in another school building and also hired a private contractor to perform a visual inspection and air quality testing in the principal's former building. The principal was counseled regarding her complaints and was given a form to authorize the release of her medical records. The principal sought to first meet with her attorney before signing the release form.

The principal was then directed to submit to an examination in accordance with Education Law section 913 to determine her "physical and/or mental capacity to continue her duties." The principal returned two releases "by protest" prepared for two doctors and crossed out the section on the releases that stated that information "may be subject to re-disclosure" (to third parties, such as an insurer).

The principal asserted that her right to privacy and confidentiality had been breached by the district's ordering her to be examined. In ruling against the principal, the commissioner reaffirmed that a board of education has a statutory right to order such employees to submit to medical examinations in order to determine their capacity to perform the duties of their positons.

Turning to the facts of the case, the commissioner determined that the district's actions were reasonable in light of the principal's numerous health complaints that she claimed were caused by the conditions at the school, her absences and the district's need to have an individual in the position of principal of the school who could perform the duties. Given the facts, the commissioner determined that such employees, "therefore have a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to state inquiries into their physical fitness to perform as [employees]" and that the district had no obligation to provide any additional explanation as to why it was requiring a medical examination.

The principal also claimed the district could not compel her to authorize the re-disclosure of her medical records. Although the commissioner acknowledged that a school district does not have "unfettered discretion to compel the production of medical records," in this case it was not unreasonable that the district sought three years of the principal's medical records. "Legitimate requests for medical information by those responsible for the health of the community do not rise to an impermissible invasion of privacy," according to the commissioner.

With respect to the principal's objection to the release form, the commissioner said districts have obligations under HIPPA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). The district in this case had to inform the principal that "once the document(s) responsive to the release have left the control of the health care provider, it is possible the documents(s) may be re-disclosed by the recipient, which would render the documents no longer protected under HIPAA." Accordingly, the commissioner found no merit in the principal's argument that the re-disclosure provision of the HIPAA release form violated her right to privacy.

In prior decisions, the commissioner has ruled that a school district employee's refusal to comply with a medical exam that is reasonably ordered by the school board may constitute insubordination. Such an employee may be suspended without pay. If the employee is tenured, this may warrant filing disciplinary charges under Education Law section 3020-a.

The commissioner has also ruled that a school board may refuse to allow a teacher to return to work after an extended absence until the teacher provides medical records and submits to an examination by a district-selected physician. In the case of a superintendent or other employee working under a contract, the district's prerogative may be limited by the language in the superintendent's employment contract.