AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Mental Examinations
A county deputy sheriff gave a deposition during which he accused the sheriff of bribery, corruption, trafficking illegal aliens, securing fraudulent loans, and soliciting two murders. The sheriff and his subordinates referred the deputy to a psychologist to evaluate his fitness for duty. The examination resulted in a determination that the deputy was suffering psychological and cognitive problems from a previous brain tumor, rendering him unfit for his duties. The deputy was then fired, based on the examination, the false allegations against the sheriff, and violations of departmental general orders. The fired deputy sued the sheriff, his subordinates, and the county for federal civil rights violations, claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for protected speech. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court found that the fitness-for-duty examination provided an independent, non-pretextual, and non-retaliatory basis for the termination. It rejected the argument that a jury could question whether the fitness examination was ordered in good faith because he received a “standard” rating in his last annual performance review, citing the importance of such precautionary measures in the law enforcement context due to “the risks posed by an officer who is not well enough to work.” Milliman v. City of McHenry, #17-2687, 893 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2018).
Under California law, a worker's
psychiatric injury is not compensable for workers' compensation purposes if it
was substantially caused by a personnel action—that is, if 35 to 40 percent of
the cause is a personnel action. The plaintiff was a supervising probation
officer who was the subject of an internal affairs investigation after another
officer filed a complaint with the union accusing him of wrongdoing. A
psychiatrist appointed as the medical evaluator of his subsequent psychiatric
injury found that it was caused in equal thirds by the coworkers' complaint,
which was not a personnel action, by the internal investigation, which was a
personnel action, and by the plaintiff's feelings of not being supported by his
superiors, which it was disputed as to whether it constituted a personnel
action. The Workers Compensation Appeals Board accepted the
psychiatrist's opinion that the third factor was not a personnel action, and therefore
awarded benefits. An intermediate California appeals court annulled this
determination, finding that the psychiatrist had no authority to decide what
was or was not a personnel action, so further proceedings were required. County
of Sacramento v. WCAB, #C067739, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 311
Plaintiff, in a wrongful fatal shooting
lawsuit, demanded that a law enforcement officer submit to a mental
examination; the federal court agreed to the demand. On review, the 5th Circuit
holds that interim discovery orders are not appealable. Goodman v. Harris
County, #04-20859, 443 F.3d 464, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7085 (5th Cir. 2006).
[2006 FP Sep]