Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Tenn.: School resource officer fired for taking oxycodone without supervision, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The officer’s taking oxycodone and failing to report this violated his school’s drug policy and state law.

A School Resource Officer was terminated for failing to comply with the school’s Substance Abuse Policy and for violating state law. The employee sued his employer for violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that his employer: discriminated against him based on his disability; failed to engage in the interactive process; failed to provide a reasonable accommodation; and fired him in retaliation for participating in a protected activity. Finding the ADA claims without merit, the court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss (Clem v. Coffee County, Tennessee, No. 4:24-CV-25-KAC-MJD (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 4, 2026)).

School resource officer. From 2018 to November 2022, the employee worked at the Sheriff’s Department in Coffee County, Tennessee as a School Resource Officer (SRO) at Coffee County High School. As an SRO, the employee carried a firearm and was responsible for the safety of the children in the school.

Ruptured discs. Since 2007 or 2008, the employee stated that he suffered ruptured discs in his back that limited his ability to walk, sit, and stand for extended periods of time and caused him severe pain. Prior to his termination, the employee underwent four surgeries for his back problems, the most recent in 2019.

On October 23, 2022, the employee took oxycodone from his August 2020 prescription. On October 25, 2022, he “tweaked [his] back” at work and reported his injury to his employer, the Coffee County Sheriff. The sheriff’s office thereafter instructed the employee to get a drug screening. When the drug test showed positive for oxycodone, the sheriff fired the employee, citing state law and the school’s drug screening policy. The current dispute relates primarily to the school’s termination of the employee based on his failure to comply with the school’s “Substance Abuse Policy Statement.”

Substance abuse policy. The school’s substance abuse policy: (1) requires an employee to undergo a drug test any time he is “involved in on-the job accidents where personal injury occurs;” (2) the policy prohibits an employee from using prescription drugs illegally; and (3) the policy requires that employees who are prescribed drugs or medications that may affect their physical or mental capacities to perform their job to “inform either their supervisor or a manager “of their use of such drugs or medications.”

Failing a drug test or failing to report prescription drug use is grounds for discipline, including termination. A positive drug test must be reported to the school’s Medical Review Officer (MRO), who must speak with the employee and give him the chance to explain the drug test before reporting it to the SRO’s employer.

Following his termination by the county, the employee sued, claiming the county: discriminated against him based on his disability; failed to engage in the interactive process; failed to provide a reasonable accommodation; and fired him in retaliation for participating in a protected activity—his use of prescription opiates to manage his back pain.

The county moved for summary judgment in its favor, which the district court granted.

Qualified individual. The court granted summary judgment to the county on the employee’s first three allegations. The court concluded that under section 12112 of the ADA, the employee was not “a qualified individual with a disability.” This was so because he was currently using a controlled substance (oxycodone), as defined and prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act. Although there are exceptions to the CSA rule, these exceptions were not available to the employee because his prescription of oxycodone in August 2020 was not taken “under the supervision by a licensed health care professional” over two (2) years later, in October 2022.

The court also granted the county’s motion for summary judgment against the employee’s claim for retaliation. The court ruled that the employee could not make a prima facie case because he was “engaging in the illegal use of drugs” under the ADA. But even if he made his prima facie case, his violation of the school’s substance policy would be a legitimate reason to terminate him.

Discrimination claim. The court also stated that even if the employee had surmounted the ADA statutory requirements, he would have to make a prima facie case of discrimination. If the employee met this hurdle, he then would have to successfully argue that the school did not provide a legitimate reason to fire him, and that its stated reason was a pretext for disability discrimination against him. The court concluded that the employee had not met his burden to prove this discrimination and ruled against him on these contentions.

Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 4:24-CV-25-KAC-MJD.

Judge: Crytzer, K.

Attorneys: G. Brandon Hall, Employment and Commerce Law Group, for Eric Clem. Jeffrey R. Thompson (Lewis Thomason) for Coffee County, Tennessee.

Companies: Coffee County, Tennessee

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees TennesseeNews