Reasonable Suspicion for Workplace

Train-the-Trainer ©

Presented By:

2

PRE-ASSESSMENT

Multiple Choice: How many illicit substance users were there in the U.S. in 2014?

A) 10 million B) 16 million C) 22 million D) 27 million

As of December 2014, what is the most commonly abused substance?

__________________

As of December 2014, what is the most commonly abused illicit substance?

__________________

True or False: The average return on investment for an effective drug-testing

program is 100 times it cost.

True or False: One of the greatest problems with reasonable suspicion testing is

the vagueness in defining what circumstances warrant a drug test.

Multiple Choice: In order to have a reasonable belief that an employee is under

the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, SIGNS of impairment must be …

(Select all that apply)

A) Acknowledged by the impaired employee B) Caused by a drug

C) Specific to a certain drug D) Witnessed by at least 2 individuals

What is the best tool for defining “reasonable suspicion” and reducing supervisor

bias in a reasonable suspicion case?

__________________

Multiple Choice: According to Quest Diagnostics’ annual drug testing index,

which of the following drug tests generates the highest positivity rates?

A) Reasonable Suspicion B) Random C) Post-accident D) Pre-employment

3

Goals for today…

identify common causes for non-reporting

- why don’t supervisors take action when they should?

operationalizing “reasonable suspicion”

- how can we make this term useful to our supervisors?

“but they’re my most productive employee…”

- help supervisors address their own unique barriers

handling the employee confrontation

- proven techniques to increase supervisor comfort and

confidence

4

Operationalizing “Reasonable Suspicion”…

Supervisors who incorrectly identify drug impairment and refer an employee for

reasonable suspicion testing can create an array of unintentional and undesired

organizational effects. These effects include increased testing costs, reduced

motivation, morale and productivity, and the most frightening – litigation.

When used appropriately, reasonable suspicion drug testing is arguably an

employers greatest weapon in the fight against workplace substance abuse.

Unfortunately, most employers have a limited understanding of what constitues

“reasonable suspicion” because there are so many different interpretations.

What do you make of the following DOT definition of reasonable suspicion?

“An objective, unbiased approach to spotting illicit drug use in the workplace,

where a person trained to spot certain signs would reasonably conclude that an

employee is impaired by a specific substance.”

OK… The DOT definition may differ from statutory law, which can differ

dramatically from state-to-state. This ‘vagueness’ challenges the very nature of

reasonable suspicion testing and prevents many front-line supervisors from taking

action when they know they probably should.

Ask yourself the following questions… “What can I do as a leader and/or trainer in

my company to help empower my management team ? How can I help guide my

supervisors to refer employees who meet the criteria for reasonable suspicion drug

and alcohol testing (while staying well within legal and ethical guidelines)?”

5

Operationalizing “Reasonable Suspicion”… (cont.)

It is rather difficult to measure substance abuse symptoms without some form of

medical testing. Most symptoms are, however, outwardly expressed by the

substance abuser in predictable ways. These predictable physical and behavioral

effects allow supervisors to correlate the observed SIGNS to a specific drug or class

of drugs.

SIGNS of impairment must be attributable to predictable SIGNS of a specific drug

(e.g. heroin, alcohol, marijuana, etc.) or a specific class of drugs (e.g. stimulant or

depressant).

SIGNS of impairment must be contemporaneous – they must be occurring at the

moment. You should not test an employee on the basis of reasonable suspicion on

Monday at 8:01 AM, if you witnessed SIGNS of impairment on Friday at 4:29 PM.

SIGNS of impairment must be articulable. Gut feelings are important, and can be a

guiding force for supervisors down the investigatory path, but a supervisor should

never make a referral for reasonable suspicion drug testing because ‘something

doesn’t feel right’. If an individual is not able to articulate the SIGNS they are

seeing, a referral for testing must not be given.

6

Operationalizing “Reasonable Suspicion”… (cont.)

5 SIGNS of Impairment Most Commonly Associated with the Following Drugs:

Alcohol: Odor of alcohol on breath, unsteady gait, difficulty balancing, impaired

fine motor skills, slurred speech.

Heroin: Sedated/sleepy, fresh needle marks on body, track marks on inner arm,

constricted pupils, droopy eyelids.

Marijuana: Bloodshot eyes, poor concentration, impaired perception of time, loss

of energy, impaired perception of distance.

PCP: Unpredictable behavior, “spaced-out”, disoriented, impervious to physical

pain, seems paranoid.

Cocaine: Dramatic weight loss, financial problems, frequently sniffing, absent from

work duties, erratic behavior.

Get the idea here? All of these SIGNS are specific to a drug and can be articulated.

7

Operationalizing “Reasonable Suspicion”… (cont.)

According to Quest Diagnostics 2015 Drug Testing Index, in 2014, reasonable

suspicion tests for federally-mandated workers equalled a 9.3 percent positivity

rate, while the general workforce equalled a 27.7 percent positivity rate.

Supervisors need to be trained on specific, articulable SIGNS of illicit drug use, but

employers must also reassure their supervisors that a negative reasonable suspicion

drug screen is not necessarily a failure on their part.

To reduce the likelihood of a negative screen, and to remain as objective and

unbiased as possible, supervisors should utilize some type of reasonable cause

checklist.

Reasonable suspicion checklists should be included in drug testing policies as a

means for the employer to clearly define reasonable suspicion. A sound checklist

affords both the supervisor and subordinate a shared understanding of what

situations can trigger a reasonable suspicion test.

8

Operationalizing “Reasonable Suspicion”… (cont.)

Supervisors should remember the acronym SIGNS when dealing with potential

impairment in the workplace.

The supervisor must See the Impaired employee for themselves. They cannot make

a determination to test based on another employee’s testimony. Indeed, the

supervisor can investigate a verbal or written report of potential workplace

impairment, but SIGNS must be directly observed by the trained supervisor.

The supervisor must Gather the facts of the case only. What is known to be

occurring right now? He/she must seek the truth and leave out their opinion.

There is a big difference between calling an employee drunk and stating objectively

that they smell like alcohol and have slurred speech. The employee may be a

diabetic with low blood sugar. Stick to the facts and Never accuse the employee of

anything, because until the test results prove otherwise, the exact causes for the

SIGNS may not be known.

9

Common Causes for Non-Reporting…

Supervisors approach reasonable suspicion cases in their own unique way while

following a set of organizational guidelines. There are a multitude of variables in

play long before a reasonable suspicion case is presented (e.g. friendships, conflicts,

lunchroom gossip, etc). These variables can dramatically impact a supervisor’s

decision to take action or sweep the case under the proverbial rug.

It is vitally important for supervisors to recognize their own limitations,

weaknesses, or areas of opportunity regarding reasonable suspicion reporting. If

their reasons for non-reporting are not addressed and remedied BEFORE a

reasonable suspicion case is presented, a failure to take appropriate action is the

most common response.

Take a look at some extremely common reasons why supervisors do not report

reasonable suspicion cases below. Identify your reasons, or add your own.

1) Afraid of mislabeling an employee

2) Project their own use

3) Concerned it will ‘turn ugly’

4) Don’t have time

5) Lack competency / proper training

6) The employee is their friend

7) The employee is too nice

8) The employee is productive

9) One’s business is their own

10) Company will not support decision

10

Overcoming Barriers for Taking Action…

Once a supervisor’s personal barriers to reporting have been identified, each barrier must

be placed into context and remedied by the trainer.

1) Afraid of mislabeling an employee – Remember the “N” in SIGNS: Never accuse.

The supervisor’s job is to spot potential impairment that may cause a safety hazard to the

employee, other staff, and customers. They should stick to the facts, and let the

employee know what the facts are.

2) Project their own use – Yes, 90 percent of alcohol and other substance users (i.e.

medicinal users) do not have, nor will they develop a drug and/or alcohol problem. That

still leaves 1 out of 10. Remember, employees generally put their best foot forward when

showing up for work. When a supervisor witnesses impairment, they are seeing the

employee at their attempted best. Also, not everyone that tests positive for an illicit

substance needs inpatient rehab. We all make mistakes, but our mistakes should not put

the company we work for and the lives of those around us in jeopardy.

3) Concerned it will ‘turn ugly’ – Indeed the confrontation may turn ugly, especially if

the person is guilty of impairment. While a supervisor cannot necessarily prevent an

‘ugly’ confrontation, he/she can take steps to mitigate the severity. The supervisor is

armed with objective facts – stick to them. It’s not about the supervisor liking or not

liking the employee, it’s about his/her responsibility to protect the safety of the employee

in question, other staff, and the customers served. Period.

4) Don’t have time – Reasonable suspicion cases will rarely present themselves when

the supervisor is twittling their fingers with nothing to do. They are not on a supervisor’s

to-do-list, and thus are commonly perceived as an inconvenience to daily tasks.

Responding to potential safety hazards should be a supervisor’s utmost priority. They

may think they don’t have time now, but I can assure you, they definitely will not have

time when the employee injures themselves, the company, or another individual because

of their failure to respond.

5) Lack competency / proper training – This responsibility should primarily fall on the

shoulders of leadership, but supervisors should also seek out the knowledge themselves.

When trainings present themselves, keep an open mind and learn as much as you can.

Ask questions, participate. Comfort follows competency. The more comfortable you are

with reasonble suspicion cases, the more likely you will be to take action when the time

calls for it.

11

Overcoming Barriers for Taking Action…

6) The employee is their friend – Workplace friendships are great. A wide body of

research suggests that the most productive and happy employees are those who have an

abundance of workplace friendships. However, supervisors must not let their feelings

toward a friend interfere with their job to prevent safety incidents. Friends don’t let

friends drive drunk, right? Plus, wouldn’t a friend want to protect the safety and general

livelihood of their friend? Wouldn’t a friend want to keep a situation from spiraling out

of control?

7) The employee is too nice – Substance abuse and addiction can certainly affect the

mood of the user – in both good and bad ways. Not every user will experience severe

moods swings, be irritible or angry. In fact, many will be happy because they get to do

two things they love at the same time: make money and get high. Supervisor’s should

not assume that an impaired employee can’t be nice - absolutely they can be.

8) The employee is productive – The response here is similar to the one above. Some

employees use illicit drugs to become more productive, but most use to alter their state of

mind to a better place. Happy employees tend to work harder then unhappy employees.

Think about it. It is not uncommon for an employee to be impaired in the workplace and

highly productive at the same time.

9) One’s business is their own – While this may be true outside of the workplace,

certain rights are given up when a person reports for work duty. Anytime a customer or

employee’s safety is called into question, it becomes the business of every person

involved, especially the business of the organization. Supervisors must inform their

employees that unsafe behaviors, influenced by a substance or not, will be dealt with

immediately.

10) Company will not support decision – It is the company’s responsibility to uphold

it’s mission and core values, which includes a drug-free workplace. Leadership

(including supervisors) must have a working knowledge of their company’s drug and

alcohol policy, and be prepared to explain the policy to all employees. Most importantly,

senior leadership must vocalize their support to supervisors who take appropriate action,

even if the drug screen results are negative. A sure-fire way to prevent supervisor’s from

taking necessary action is to condemn them for attempting to ‘do the right thing’ or

ignore their positive action altogether.

12

Handling the Confrontation…

The angry employee

Stick to the facts

Don’t accuse

Don’t mirror their behaviors

Keep an open posture, sit up straight

Employee has 2 choices:

1) Get tested 2) Face disciplinary action/termination

13

Handling the Confrontation…

The crying employee

Stick to the facts

Don’t accuse

Sympathy is OK

Keep an open posture, lean forward

Goal is to determine cause of impairment, not counsel

Referral to EAP may be appropriate following testing

14

Handling the Confrontation…

The overly polite employee

Stick to the facts

Don’t accuse

Friendliness is commonly used to manipulate

Remind yourself why you initiated the investigation

Stay the course; you have the proper knowledge and facts of the case

15

Notes

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

________________________________________

16

Reasonable Suspicion for Workplace

Train-the-Trainer

A Corporate Training Series Presented By:

Ryan West

Corporate Trainer

724.825.1101 cell

rwest@greenbriar.net