Addressing potential employee impairment is a key part of maintaining a safe and productive work environment. This guide provides supervisors with the necessary information to manage reasonable suspicion testing correctly and confidently. It outlines the steps from initial observation to post-test procedures, ensuring that actions taken are fair, consistent, and legally sound.
Defining Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is more than a simple hunch; it is a standard that requires specific, factual, and observable evidence. The basis for initiating a test must be grounded in what a prudent person would conclude in the same situation. Supervisors must be able to articulate clear, contemporaneous observations about an employee’s appearance, behavior, speech, or any smells.
The principle is to connect observed behaviors directly to job performance and safety. For instance, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that supervisors receive training on alcohol misuse and controlled substance use to recognize these signs. While not all workplaces fall under DOT jurisdiction, basing suspicion on articulable facts is a universal best practice. It is the documentation of these specific, objective facts that separates a defensible test from a decision that could be perceived as arbitrary.
Observable Signs of Potential Impairment
A determination of reasonable suspicion should not hinge on a single isolated sign, but on a pattern of observations. Recognizing the signs is the first step, and these indicators can be grouped into several categories to help supervisors make an informed and objective assessment. The combination of these signs creates a compelling reason to proceed with testing.
Physical Signs
Physical indicators are often the most direct signs of possible impairment. Supervisors should look for things such as bloodshot or watery eyes, dilated or constricted pupils, and an unsteady gait or difficulty with balance. Other observable physical signs might include tremors or shakes, profuse sweating, a flushed complexion, or the presence of unexplained puncture marks.
Behavioral Changes
An employee’s conduct can be a strong indicator. A sudden or dramatic shift in behavior, such as becoming unusually argumentative, aggressive, or withdrawn, should be noted. Other behavioral red flags include paranoid or secretive actions, mood swings, and a noticeable display of excessive fatigue or hyperactivity. These changes are particularly noteworthy when they are out of character for the individual.
Speech and Cognitive Indicators
How an employee communicates can reveal their state. Slurred, incoherent, or unusually slow or fast speech can be a sign of impairment. Cognitive difficulties might manifest as confusion, disorientation, an inability to focus, or providing nonsensical answers to straightforward questions. A blank stare or a noticeable difficulty in comprehending instructions are also signs that should be documented.
Odors
The presence of certain smells can be a direct indicator of substance use. The odor of alcohol on an employee’s breath is a primary sign. Similarly, the distinct smell of marijuana on an employee’s clothing or person should be noted. Supervisors should also be aware of attempts to mask these smells, such as the heavy use of mints, mouthwash, or breath sprays.
Work Performance Issues
A sudden decline in work performance can be a contributing factor to a reasonable suspicion determination when combined with other signs. This can include a sudden increase in errors, unsafe acts, a drop in productivity, or difficulty operating machinery or tools. Chronic lateness or a pattern of excessive absences can also be part of the overall picture.
The Supervisor’s Step-by-Step Procedure
When a supervisor has gathered enough objective observations to form a reasonable suspicion, a clear procedure must be followed. The first action is to privately document every specific, articulable observation in detail, including dates and times, before approaching the employee.
Whenever possible, the next step involves seeking a second opinion. The supervisor should ask another manager or an HR representative to also observe the employee’s behavior and speech. This corroboration strengthens the case for testing and helps ensure observations are not based on a single individual’s perception. The second observer should also document their findings independently.
With documented observations, the employee should be escorted to a private office. The supervisor, along with the witness, should explain the reason for the meeting, focusing exclusively on the documented observations of behavior and appearance. During this conversation, clearly state that a reasonable suspicion test is required per company policy, focusing on workplace safety.
Finally, the supervisor must arrange for the employee to be transported to the testing facility and then home. The employee must not be allowed to drive.
Documentation and Legal Best Practices
Thorough and objective documentation protects both the supervisor and the company from legal risk. Every observation leading to the decision to test must be recorded on a standardized form, detailing the specific behaviors, physical signs, and speech patterns observed. This documentation should be factual and completed within 24 hours of the observation.
Supervisors must avoid making a diagnosis. Their role is to observe and document behaviors that impact job performance and safety, not to determine the cause. A report should state “the employee had slurred speech,” not “the employee was drunk.” This distinction is important when considering protections under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Consistency is another legal best practice. The company’s drug and alcohol policy must be applied fairly and consistently to all employees in similar situations. Selective enforcement can lead to claims of discrimination, so supervisors must follow the established company procedure for every case.
Confidentiality is required throughout the entire process. The situation must not be discussed with anyone who does not have a legitimate, need-to-know role, such as the second supervisor or HR. Sharing information with other staff can violate the employee’s privacy rights and create legal liability.
Navigating Post-Test Scenarios
After an employee has been sent for testing, the supervisor’s role is to follow established company policy as directed by human resources. Supervisors should not make independent disciplinary decisions but should be prepared for common scenarios.
If the test result is positive, the company’s policy will dictate the next steps. This could range from mandatory participation in an employee assistance program (EAP) to immediate termination. The supervisor’s responsibility is to execute the disciplinary action as determined by HR.
If the test result is negative, the employee should be returned to work as soon as possible. It is often recommended that the employee be compensated for any work time missed during the process to demonstrate good faith.
A refusal to submit to a test is treated as a positive result under most company policies. If an employee refuses, the supervisor should clearly explain the consequences of this refusal as outlined in the policy and document the event.