Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

indicated good cause for trying to determine whether she was able to perform her job in light of missing an excessive number of workdays. The employee’s excessive absenteeism had seriously impacted her productivity and overall job performance. In this case, Yin’s expectation of privacy was diminished and requiring her to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination would clearly further the state’s interest in assuring a productive and stable work force. Deckert v. City of Ulysses 210 An insulin-dependent diabetic police officer was properly required to submit to a fitness for duty examination where the requirement was based upon sudden poor job performance and erratic behavior by the officer. After 17-years as a police officer, the officer’s job performance suddenly plummeted. He left his patrol car unlocked, unattended and running while responding to a call, resulting in an individual parking it several blocks away. He also failed to write a required report on a domestic violence call, failed to provide backup for a building search by two other officers, and failed to lock his patrol car at the end of his shift. On the basis of these deficiencies and his inadequate investigation of a tire theft two months earlier, the police chief suspended him, demoted him from sergeant, and required him to undergo a medical exam to determine if his suddenly poor duty performance was caused by diabetes. The Court upheld the examination based on the officer’s poor performance, and the City's actions which were consistent with the ADA and sound management principles. Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista 211 A city attorney was properly required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation after she appeared visibly shaken, was hyperventilating and in a state of frenzy while in court. The supervisor relayed these observations to a consulting psychiatrist who confirmed the need for the evaluation. The attorney challenged the examination in court. The court upheld the employer’s need to conduct a fitness for duty examination based on “the information available to the employer about the severity of the outburst and his personal observations of the attorney's demeanor when she reported the incident; the staff psychiatrist's recommendation that the employee immediately take a fitness-for-duty evaluation; and the high level of fortitude and professionalism required of litigation attorneys.” Jermon v. County of Sonoma 212 A janitor came to work and locked himself in the employee break room. After discovering him, his supervisors ordered him to take a fitness for duty examination for drug or alcohol abuse. The employee brought suit challenging the county’s policy. The county’s fitness for duty drug and alcohol policy required the following procedures: 1) the employee exhibit at least two conditions commonly associated with substance abuse, 2) the supervisor check with their manager prior to testing, 3) the supervisor talk with the employee regarding their behavior, 4) the supervisor speak with medical staff regarding

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 66