Fitness for Duty Examinations for Employees: What Schools Need to Know
August 28, 2026
By: Janell Harper, Former Law Clerk
School Boards have a fundamental responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their students and employees. In New Jersey, that responsibility is reflected in N.J.A.C. 6A:32-6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2, which establish the legal framework governing physical and psychiatric fitness-for-duty examinations of school employees.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2, a board of education may require an employee to undergo a psychiatric or physical examination when the board determines there is evidence of a deviation from normal physical or mental health that may affect the employee’s ability to perform their job. N.J.A.C. 6A:32-6 further provides that the purpose of the examination is to determine whether the employee is physically and mentally fit to perform their job functions, with reasonable accommodations, if necessary.
The law also includes important procedural safeguards. Before requiring an examination, the Board must provide the employee with a written statement explaining the reason or reasons for the examination and must provide an opportunity for a hearing, if requested by the employee.
The importance of adhering to these procedural requirements was recently highlighted in Nelson v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Stafford. In that case, a teacher was the subject of multiple concerns, including late arrivals and early departures, failure to observe a student leaving school grounds, and inconsistent attendance. The teacher also sent text messages to other staff members outside of the workday that included threats related to the Superintendent. After the teacher was observed appearing to be under the influence at school on multiple occasions, the teacher and the District entered into a Last Chance Agreement.
Eventually, the Superintendent directed the teacher to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination or, alternatively, provide some correspondence from his healthcare provider confirming that he was fit to return to work. The Superintendent also provided the teacher with a letter outlining the reasons for the directive.
The teacher challenged the directive. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially determined that the Board properly required the teacher to either undergo a psychiatric examination or provide a letter from his own medical provider confirming his fitness for duty. On review, the Commissioner of Education rejected the ALJ’s decision because the Board had not provided the teacher with the notice and opportunity for a hearing required by law.
While N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 gives boards of education discretion to require fitness-for-duty examinations, that discretion is not unlimited. In Kochman v. Keansburg Board of Education, 124 N.J. Super. 203 (Ch. Div. 1973), the court interpreted the statutory phrase “deviation from normal mental health” to mean a “harmful, significant deviation from mental health affecting the teacher’s ability to teach, discipline, or associate with children” under the teacher’s supervision. Accordingly, a board should have a reasonable factual basis demonstrating that an employee’s physical or mental condition may impair the employee’s ability to perform their job responsibilities before ordering an examination.
Takeaway for School Boards
The Nelson decision serves as an important reminder that having a legitimate reason to require a fitness-for-duty examination is only part of the equation. Before directing an employee to undergo a psychiatric or physical evaluation, school boards should:
- Document objective evidence supporting the need for the examination;
- Provide the employee with a written statement identifying the reasons for the directive; and
- Provide the employee the opportunity for a hearing as required by law.
Following both the substantive and procedural requirements governing fitness-for-duty examinations can help school boards address legitimate concerns about an employee’s ability to safely perform their job while minimizing the risk that an otherwise justified directive will be overturned because the required procedures were not followed.
This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC. The information contained herein is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute as legal advice. Readers of this publication herein should not rely upon or use as a substitute for consultation with legal, career and or professional advisors. Nothing herein should be considered advice, recommendation, or an offer to perform services. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.