©2004 NewFoundations

Disciplining Personnel for Online Ordering of Medications on School Computers

(the author wishes to remain anonymous)

RETURN
edited 8/21/11

In August of 2004, a school secretary (SS) visited the high school building in which she is employed from September until June of each school year. It was at this time that she unofficially sat at her assigned, and presently unoccupied, desk and accessed the school computer located there using her personal code. Unbeknownst to the staff and administration present, she shopped online and placed an order for a prescription drug to be delivered to the school address. Several days later, the school principal (P) intercepted a delivery in her name. P was curious as to the contents of the package when he heard it rattle. P then felt the package with his hands and believed there was a cylindrical container housing the source of the rattle. He suspected it was legal or illegal medication. P opened the package and discovered that it contained a prescription drug called Ultram.

Ultram is not a controlled substance. It is, however, a pain reliever similar to narcotic analgesics that may become habit-forming, causing mental or physical dependence (Yahoo! Health, p.1). Ultram is "not recommended for patients with a tendency to drug abuse or a history of drug dependence" (Yahoo! News, p.1).

Subsequently, P contacted the school computer technician to access the Internet files on the computer assigned to SS. This search revealed that SS had used the school's computer on many occasions to visit Internet pharmacies and to correspond with these companies via her email.

This author believes that based on the findings and arguments presented below, the Board of Education's decision to suspend SS without pay for the first five days of September for her actions was ethical and justified.

The school superintendent, the principal, and one school secretary (SS2) were aware that SS had a history of substance dependency. In fact, the superintendent had previously reprimanded SS for failure to satisfactorily perform the duties associated with her position. At that time, SS revealed to the superintendent that a dependence on pain medication was the reason for her poor performance. Treatment for addiction was mandated and it was also stipulated that SS was to refrain from the use of this type of medication or there would be disciplinary consequences.

In addition, SS2 was privy to the fact that SS was having drugs delivered to the school on a regular basis but did not share this information with anyone. SS's immediate supervisor, the vice principal (VP) was, at that time, unaware of the dependency issue. Although, VP suspected as much when SS asked VP in confidence to take pain pills from her ailing mother and give them to SS for her chronic back pain that resulted from an auto accident years ago. An investigation into SS's substance abuse after the discovery of the Ultram revealed that she was covertly trying to self-medicate without visiting a physician because her family doctor was trying to wean her off of the excessive amount of pain medication he had been prescribing to her for years.

Both SS2 and VP were neglectful in their professional responsibility to "do the right thing" for not reporting what they knew concerning SS's drug use. According to ethical theorist Immanuel Kant, "an acts moral worth depends on the reason for which it was done" (Hinman, p.77). So despite personal consequences, "out of concern for what is morally right," SS2 and VP were, in theory, duty-bound to share their suspicions with their superiors, which they did not do. Psychologist Carol Gilligan theorizes that this inaction on the part of SS2 and VP was because as women, their role of "responsibility is directed toward real individuals, not toward abstract codes of conduct." She argues that women are more likely to seek resolutions that preserve and connect relationships "whereas men typically make moral decisions by applying rules fairly and impartially" (Hinman, p.315).

Additional theories that lay claim to what SS2 and VP ought to have done include that of British philosopher W.D. Ross, who states that SS2 and VP had a "duty to improve the conditions of others" and this "actual duty" (to report suspicions) may overturn "prima facie" duty of maintaining confidentiality (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p.6). Consequentialist normative principles dictate that SS2 and VP should "tally both the good and bad consequences of an action," in this case to tell or not to tell, to determine if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences (Encyclopedia, p.6). And according to Lawrence M. Hinman, our actions should be Kantian in "acting for the sake of duty." However, unlike Kant, he argues that "our highest moral ideal should contain some ... reason and emotion" (Hinman, p. 98). Connecting Hinman to Gilligan, the emotion contained in SS2 and VP's moral ideals is precisely what affected their moral reasoning to keep information pertaining to SS confidential.

Based on the history of SS, the imminence of the situation made it necessary for P to intervene immediately. The utilitarian viewpoint upholds the actions of P as he fulfilled his ethical and moral obligation to SS when he opened a packaged addressed to SS to protect her safety and well being. P acted in his employee's best interest to get her the help she needed to possibly save her life and/or job when she was unable to help herself.

P also had reasonable cause to believe that SS had committed an unethical act. His search of the package was based on reasonable suspicion of misconduct. NJ v T.L.O. (1985) requires only "reasonable suspicion" to search students and school employees "because of the special circumstances inherent in the school environment." Likewise, O'Connor v Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) adds that the expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case basis (Alabama State Department of Education, p.1). In addition, SS's "right of privacy" must be balanced against the state's compelling interests, including "protecting of the individuals psychological health ... and quality of life (Legal Information Institute, p.1).

P has an "interest in the efficient and proper operation of the workplace" (O'Connor v Ortega) and the duty to maintain a proper educational environment. Consequently, he had the right to monitor the incoming package addressed to SS and a valid reason to intercept it when the content was questionable and possibly illegal. The subsequent search of SS's Internet files on her school-owned computer was also "justified at its inception" and reasonable for similar reasons. P argues that no injustice occurred.

The high school (SHS) involved in this ethical scenario does have a policy with regard to appropriate Internet use. This Appropriate Use Policy (AUP) states that the user of the school computer should not access inappropriate or offensive material citing examples such as graphically sexually oriented images, profanity, and racist sites. It continues that violations "be they one-time or chronic will subject the user to disciplinary action up to and including termination." SS argues that the Internet pharmaceutical site was appropriate because it was not illegal, nor was it blocked by the firewall, and that she was unjustly suspended. Furthermore, SS could argue that she has a human right for treatment to alleviate pain (Yahoo! News, p.1).

The AUP at SHS does not restrict using the computer for personal reasons. Personal computing is usually overlooked and considered "taking a break" if the employee remains productive. In a poll of 726 respondents administered by G. McDonald for his article "Increase in Unethical Practices in the Workplace," 46% (nearly half) of the people polled believe that using the office PC for personal online shopping is ethical (Anstead, p.1). SS contends that SHS implicitly authorized the usage of Internet shopping sites and the delivery of personal packages to school through past practice. There was not a policy or directive banning the delivery of packages to the school. In addition, she claims that she never used the school PC for personal reasons during work time.

SS believes that her suspension without pay was unjust and severe. She rationalizes that because of her chronic back pain, she had the "permission to act" to "claim whatever is covered or guaranteed by that right," in this case, to receive the medication that was intercepted by P (Hinman, p.205). Furthermore, she argues that her "right to well-being" is a "positive right" and the school interfered with SS's exercise of that right, as well (p.229). SS also asserts that P invaded her privacy and 4^th amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure when he opened a package addressed to her. Moreover, she did not break any laws and therefore feels that she should not be punished. From the utilitarian viewpoint, the benefits of P's violation of SS's rights or the law when he open her package and reported his findings to the superintendent outweigh the costs.

Upon examination of these findings and arguments, what was the duty of the employer (P) to the employee (SS) when recommending a consequence for SS's actions? SS had been employed at SHS for nine years and had an exemplary record. Correspondingly, other employees have also legally used a SHS computer for personal online shopping and had packages delivered to the school. Obviously, P must protect the school environment, but did the knowledge of SS's history of drug dependence influence the decision to suspend SS for five days without pay? If so, is that ethically correct?

Normative ethics "attempt to answer specific moral questions concerning what people should do or how they should behave" (Normative Ethical Principles and Theories, p.2). SS did not commit a crime. However, the ethical dilemma of what is right or wrong, good or bad in this situation remains because of the moral obligation that P has to SS and specific "rule or decision procedures can be applied when faced with an ethical decision" such as his (Ethics Overview, p.2). The heart of the moral issue here is that SS could be harmed if P did nothing about the delivered drugs while knowing her history and the risky and unethical business of Internet pharmaceutical sales (Hinman, p.16). The utilitarian argument here is rooted in the fact that one consequence of SS's self-medicating to alleviate her pain is that this abuse of prescription medication could bring about physical harm. The impact of this consequence could also affect her co-workers and family. It would be very difficult to predict what the actual consequences of her usage would be and the probability of actual harm is slight; however, the utilitarian is concerned with preventing something bad from happening (Hinman, p.167). In this case, the actions of P were ethical in that it resulted in SS getting rehabilitated with the support of the school district and her family.

Applying the "principle of paternalism," P was duty-bound to pursue SS's best interest when she could not do so herself (Encyclopedia, p.9). Proper moral decisions involve finding the "best reasons in support one's course of action versus another" (p.9). Ultimately, P intervened because he cared about SS and was concerned about her health. P's actions "require[d] more than a knowledge or moral principles; it require[d] a sensitivity to a particular situation" (Legal Theory Lexicon, p.13). According to Kant, P's actions were "morally admirable" because they were for the sake of duty, (Hinman, p.169) and he was "not just following orders" (p.180). As such, Rozycki states in Analyzing Controversy, this is an organizational conflict. P needed to find a balance between following policy and sensitivity to individuals. In this case there was no policy regarding deliveries, and the appropriateness of the Internet pharmacy website can be debated. Sensitivity to SS and P's concern about the work environment led to his decision to open a package delivered to SS.

Ethical pluralism means that "simply not all situations admit of a single evaluation" (Hinman, p.55). This is contrary to Kant who states "what's fair for one is fair for all" (Hinman, p.183-4). Armed with the knowledge of SS's drug dependency, the decision by P to recommend to his superior to suspend SS without pay for five days was morally justified. Perhaps without this information the consequences would have been different. The invasion of SS's privacy was also justified based on the evidence presented. It would have been an ethical violation if the principal did not act on his suspicion.

Using school property and the school address for non-school related reasons is unprofessional wrongdoing, which may be the only thing that SS can be considered as guilty. However, P and the Board of Education acted promptly and appropriately considering the circumstances of her individual history. In addition, it was believed by the SHS administration and Board of Education that discipline without engagement at a personal level would be a mistake in this case, so SS was also required to attend counseling and to be mentally and physically cleared before her return to work.

Pre-analysis of Ethical Issue:

Ethical investigation -- Should a school employee be suspended without pay for five days because she used a school computer to shop online and then had the package delivered to the school address?

Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Cue, Concern, Control:

Cue:

There is a problem with a substance dependent school secretary using school equipment and the school address for a personal purchase from an Internet pharmacy and disciplinary action must be taken.

(Change in indicator)

It is appropriate to intervene now because the administration has evidence of professional misconduct, low productivity, and knowledge of prior substance dependency.

(Significance of change in indicator)

The change is significant because the administration was previously unaware that the school secretary had been ordering medication from the school computer for many months that her family physician was not sufficiently supplying for her needs.

(Externality of indicator)

The change in the indicator is something beyond itself because this behavior indicates a possible reason for low productivity from this employee.

(Trustworthiness of indicator)

Another party did not manipulate the change since the school secretary's private Internet files are not accessed by another party.

Concern:

(Interests)

The school administration is concerned for the health and well-being of the school secretary and for the maintenance of a safe, drug-free school environment.

(Obligations)

The school administration has the right and duty to intervene in the interest of the efficient and proper operation of the high school office. Applying the principle of paternalism, the administration had to pursue the school secretary's best interest when she did not do so herself.

(Liabilities)

If intervention was not attempted, the cost to the school secretary (danger and risks for the school secretary associated not only with self-medicating but also with buying medication from risky Internet pharmacies that are not regulated or controlled), her family (substance abuse directly affects families of substance dependent individuals) and the school (there is the possibility that a student could intercept her package) could be significant.

Control:

(Non-naturalness of intervention)

The attempted change in behavior might not maintain itself and intervention may be necessary.

(Practicality of intervention)

The benefits will out outweigh the costs.

(Optimality of intervention)

The suggested intervention of disciplinary consequences along with a counseling component and a physician's clearance before the she can return to work are considered to be effective methods of intervention.

Toulmin's Model:

Claim: The school principal had a moral obligation to open a package delivered to the school that was addressed to the school secretary for the safety and well being of that secretary.

Evidence: The school secretary had a history of drug dependence that had been documented in her personnel file.

Warrant: The principal had reason to believe that there was medication in the package.

Backing: The school secretary had been reprimanded by the superintendent in the past for low productivity due to dependence on prescription medication and was required to remain drug-free.

Rebuttal: The school secretary did not commit an ethical or legal violation and her privacy was violated by the school principal.

References

Legal Information Institute. Right of privacy, an overview. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/privacy.html. Retrieved October 3, 2004.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ethics. http://www.iep.edu/e/ethics.htm. Retrieved October, 16, 2004.

Alabama State Department of Education. Financial and Education Law Training Program. Education Law -- Employment Issues Module 47. http://www.uasa.ua.edu/Education. Retrieved October 8, 2004.

Yahoo! Health. Tramadol. http://health.yahoo.com//health/drugs/202789/overview. Retrieved October 12, 2004.

Yahoo! News. Pain relief a human right, leading professor says. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/2004. Retrieved October 10, 2004.

Legal Theory Lexicon. Virtue ethics and human good. http://legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.com/2003. Retrieved October 10, 2004.

Ethics Overview. Ethical theory. http://www.kirtland.cc.mi.us/cis/CIS105/Ethics/Handout%201-Ethics.htm. Retrieved October 10, 2004.

Normative Ethical Principles and Theories: A Brief Overview. http://www.stedwards.edu/usery/norm.htm. Retrieved October 7, 2004.

Anstead, S. Craig, K. Cuellar, R., & Sheikh, K. The effects of technology on ethics in the workplace. http://www.newfoundations.com/susananstead/technology_ethics.html. Retrieved October 10, 2004.

Rozycki, Edward. Values and Ethics in Education. Oreland, PA: New Foundations.

Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 3^rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 2003.

TO TOP