Local Representation
Employers need cause to
request fitness-for-duty exam
A decision by the Appellate Division has held
that an employer cannot compel an employee to
submit to a psychological fitness-for-duty exam-
ination without a sufficient factual basis to do so.
In the case of Paul Williams (443 N.J. Super. 532
[App. Div. 2016]), a case handled by our firm, the
Appellate Division established a standard which
an employer must meet to mandate that an em-
JAMES
ployee attend such an evaluation. This standard
METS
will protect employees who are ordered to attend
psychological fitness-for-duty examinations based on hearsay,
rumor, speculation, suspicion or, even worse, personal or an-
ti-union animus.
The facts of the case are these: In December 2013, the Town-
ship of Lakewood directed DPW employee Paul Williams to at-
tend a psychological fitness-for-duty examination. The direc-
tive was based in part on an anonymous letter received by the
Township eight months earlier expressing concerns about Wil-
liams’ workplace conduct. The Township, by its own admission,
failed to investigate the note or take any other action against
20
NEW JERSEY COPS
■ JULY 2018
Williams at the time it was received. After Williams refused to
attend the mandatory psychological evaluations in December
2013, the Township terminated his employment. His union,
Teamsters Local 97, appealed the termination to the Civil Ser-
vice Commission.
On behalf of Williams, our firm argued that the Township did
not have a sufficient factual basis to direct him to the evalu-
ation and that the directive itself violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed and
directed that Williams be reinstated to employment with back
pay. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) reversed the
ALJ and imposed a six-month unpaid suspension on Williams.
Significantly, the CSC conditioned reinstatement to employ-
ment on Williams’ passing a psychological fitness-for-duty
evaluation, which was the very thing that Williams had object-
ed to doing in the first place. We appealed the CSC decision to
the appellate on behalf of Williams. On appeal, the court agreed
with the arguments presented by our firm and reversed the
CSC’s decision.
In what appears to be a case of first impression in New Jersey,