Should Individuals with Past Drug Convictions be allowed to work in Schools?

This week the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that required background checks for school employees and the firing of individuals who had been convicted of certain past crimes.  An employee of the Cincinnati school district who was fired under the law for a drug trafficking offense 32 years earlier brought a challenge to the law in Doe v. Ronan.  The plaintiff in this case earned his college degree after spending three years in a correctional facility for his 1976 conviction. He then became a drug-free counselor and eventually a hearing officer for the Cincinnati Public Schools.

The court declined to find that the law was unconstitutionally retroactive or that it impaired the employment contracts of school personnel.  Even though Doe had been employed by the district for 11 years, the employment contract at issue in this case was entered into in 2008, eight months after the passage of the 2007 background check law. Thus, the law's application was not retroactive.  It also did not impair the contract because the background check and employment disqualifications requirements are implied into the contracts made under the laws of Ohio for the relevant school personnel.

I think this is an interesting decision because the plaintiff's situation, as an 11 year employee of the district who lost his job because of a new background check law that found something he did 32 years ago, can generate a lot of sympathy.  Yet, if the legislature says individuals with former drug convictions cannot work in the schools, then they cannot.  

This case is a little more nuanced than I just described, though, because the law has a provision for individuals to show the district they have been rehabilitated, which would then allow them to be hired.  But this provision was not applicable here because drug offenses did not qualify and the administrative regulation that might have allowed this type of consideration was not yet in effect.

Personally, I'm in favor of the rehabilitation clauses that give an individual like Mr. Doe the ability to demonstrate that he is not a threat to students and that in fact he could make a good contribution to the district and their education of students in light of his experience and training.  But I also support the authority of the legislature to unilaterally decline hiring individuals who have committed certain crimes from working in schools. To me this case illustrates the need for thoughtful policy-making.  In so many instances laws that are passed have unintended consequences that seriously affect individuals like Mr. Doe.  The administrative process works to "fix" these problems but not in time to help someone like the plaintiff in this case who lost his job because of it.

Here is a link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-5072.pdf