In a recent published decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division clarified the circumstances under which an employer\u2019s directive that an employee submit to a psychological for fitness-for-duty examination serves a \u201clegitimate, job-related business purpose\u201d as required under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the EEOC\u2019s Enforcement. The case, In re Paul Williams, Township of Lakewood, involved a Township of Lakewood truck driver who was sent for a psychological fitness-for-duty examination eight months after the Township received an anonymous letter from an alleged co-worker complaining that the employee was mentally unstable and a threat to other co-workers. Without the employee\u2019s consent, the Township scheduled the psychological examination and a follow-up meeting, and threatened the employee that if he failed to attend both appointments he would be disciplined. The employee refused to comply, claiming that the examination was not job-related or a business necessity and thus was in violation of his rights under the ADA. Following a hearing, the Township terminated the employee.<\/p>\n
The employee appealed to the Office of Administrative Law (\u201cOAL\u201d), which reinstated the employee to his former position because the evidence showed that: (1) the employee\u2019s work performance was satisfactory; (2) the truth of the allegations in the anonymous letter could not be verified; and (3) the Township\u2019s demand for a psychological fitness-for-duty exam was not related to his work performance or to any specific allegation of psychologically disruptive behavior. Following an additional appeal, the matter ultimately ended up before the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the OAL and held that, under the ADA, an employer cannot require an employee to undergo medical tests unless they are job-related and consistent with legitimate business necessity. Here, the Appellate Court faulted the Township for ordering the employee to undergo a psychiatric examination based solely upon information contained in an anonymous letter, precisely the kind of \u201cinnuendo and rumor that the EEOC has advised employers is insufficient to support a mandatory evaluation.\u201d The Williams holding makes clear that employers must be careful and judicious in demanding that employees submit to fitness-for-duty examinations. Such examinations may only be required when the employer has a reasonable belief, either through direct observation or reliable information from credible sources, that the employee\u2019s mental state or physical condition will either affect his or her ability to perform essential job functions or pose a direct threat to others. Employers must engage in a complete and objective assessment, untainted by general assumptions about the employee\u2019s medical condition, prior to requiring the psychological examination.<\/p>\n
In an era of increasing workplace violence, this decision places employers in a difficult position. However, employers who receive anonymous tips or other information suggesting that an employee is not mentally stable must resist knee-jerk reactions and secure the necessary observations and information that will justify requiring the employee to undergo an medical examination. Moreover, employers are encouraged to consult legal counsel for guidance on whether the examination will pass muster under the ADA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a recent published decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division clarified the circumstances under which an employer\u2019s directive that an employee submit to a psychological for fitness-for-duty examination serves a \u201clegitimate, job-related business purpose\u201d as required under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the EEOC\u2019s Enforcement. The case, In re Paul Williams, Township of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[65,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[214],"class_list":["post-1928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insights","category-labor-employment-insights"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n