A Handbook for Psychological Fitness-For-Duty Evaluations in Law Enforcement by Rostow Cary D.;Davis Robert D.; & Robert D. Davis

Author:Rostow, Cary D.;Davis, Robert D.; & Robert D. Davis [Rostow, Cary D. & Davis, Robert D.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2022-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

Improper FFDE Referrals

Corporal Charles of the Anytown Police Department reported to his supervisor that he (Charles) was being “watched” at his desk assignment by nonspecific others in a “threatening manner.” The departmental psychiatrist examined Corporal Charles and reported that he was “fit for duty” (i.e., not disabled by mental illness), but included a list of abstract concerns about Charles’ “emotional stability” in the official report. Corporal Charles was allowed to return to work under the conditions that he submit to “counseling” and that the mental health provider submit a monthly report on his progress. Corporal Charles refused to pay for counseling and pointed out that the departmental report had found him “fit for duty” and, therefore, presumably not in need of treatment. He was suspended and eventually discharged for refusing a direct order.

Corporal Charles then filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has the responsibility to enforce a number of federal civil rights laws, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since Corporal Charles had been declared “fit for duty” by the departmental FFDE provider, he challenged the “business necessity” (see Chapter 14) of required treatment and the embarrassing monthly mental heath reports to the department. The EEOC demanded that the department justify the order for treatment with proof of risk to the public, or other foreseeable liability, which was thought to stem from Corporal Charles’ medical condition.

Failing to receive such evidence, the EEOC ruled that the department had exceeded its authority by requiring post-FFDE treatments and examinations, since no connection appeared evident between the fitness-for-duty report and the order to report to a treatment provider. Since employees may not be disciplined for refusing improper requests for medical examinations or treatment, Corporal Charles was restored to his police position and received back pay and benefits. To make matters more embarrassing and expensive, the Anytown PD was ordered to conduct a “supplemental investigation” to determine whether compensatory damages should be awarded to Corporal Charles. The department was also told to arrange for sixteen hours of staff training in the legal rights of employees who are believed to suffer medical or psychological disability within a public agency.

This case is an example of the difficulties that departments must anticipate before a FFDE procedure is introduced into the personnel management system. The failure to demonstrate the risk that Corporal Charles posed to the well-being of others or to the effective functioning of the department led ultimately to the EEOC's rejection of the recommended plan. Confusion about the goals and proper methods of conducting an FFDE was compounded by a lack of awareness of legal requirements regarding the procedure on the part of both the department and the FFDE provider. In the following section, a brief review of federal laws that impinge upon the use of FFDEs is offered so that the LE executive involved in such a procedure may interact in an informed manner with those who propose to offer FFDE services.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.