Support through your toughest HR challenges: A network of 285,000 HR professionals.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
An employer may require an employee to undergo a psychological examination if the employer has sufficient on-the-job evidence that the employee’s emotional state significantly impairs her ability to perform the essential functions of her job or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others, according to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Emily Kroll worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) for White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA) for five years. In 2007, Kroll began a tumultuous affair with her married co-worker Joshua Easton. Eventually, their relationship began affecting Kroll’s emotional state. Several of Kroll’s co-workers reported to her supervisor, Director of WLAA Brian Binns, that they witnessed her crying in a parking lot, arguing with Easton over the phone, and using her phone to call and text Easton while driving an ambulance. In April 2008, after questioning Jodi Osborne about her possible affair with Easton, Kroll refused to assist Osborne in administering oxygen to a patient.
Binns informed Kroll that she could continue her employment with WLAA only if she agreed to undergo psychological counseling. Binns admitted that he ordered counseling because of his concerns over Kroll’s sexual relationships and because he believed he could help her. Since WLAA refused to pay and Kroll could not afford it, she declined the counseling. She was thereafter removed from the schedule.
Kroll filed suit in 2009, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of WLAA, finding ample evidence that Kroll’s emotional issues posed a direct threat to the safety of others and that a psychological examination was both job-related and a business necessity.
The 6th Circuit reversed the lower court’s judgment for WLAA and held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the limited information regarding Kroll’s emotional state and work behavior was insufficient to order the exam. Requiring an employee to undergo a psychological examination must be reasonably based on adequate objective evidence known to the employer ordering the examination.
While the court acknowledged Kroll’s aberrant emotional state, her behavior outside of work was only relevant in assessing whether it interfered with her behavior at work. The court elaborated that, at most, WLAA was aware of two incidents where Kroll’s emotional state impaired her ability to perform the essential functions of an EMT: 1) refusing to administer oxygen, and 2) texting while driving an ambulance. Those two instances did not provide WLAA with sufficient evidence to order a psychological examination. Had WLAA been aware of a “pattern of behavior” affecting Kroll’s work, Binns may have been justified in mandating the exam. In addition, even considering the lower standard for “public safety” workplaces, the court held that a reasonable jury could decide that Kroll’s two instances of misconduct did not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of others to justify a mandatory psychological examination.
Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, 6th Cir., No. 13-1774 (Aug. 19, 2014).
Professional Pointer: An employer should consider ordering a psychological examination only if there are numerous or significant instances of an employee’s emotional state interfering with his or her ability to perform the essential functions of the job.
Matthew Neff is an attorney with Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A., the Worklaw® member firm in Winter Park, Fla.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
SHRM Annual Conference & Exposition
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies