In law enforcement, the stakes are high. Officers are entrusted with immense responsibility, including the authority to use force and make split-second decisions that impact lives. Ensuring that officers are psychologically and emotionally fit for duty is not just a matter of internal policy, it is a necessity for public safety.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE) is permitted when there is a job related concern. More specifically, when an officer is at risk of self-harm, at risk of harm for those around them, or there is a risk to the interest of the job or company. A supervisor or manager does not need to wait for a catastrophic incident to justify an FFD evaluation. Courts have upheld that even reasonable suspicion based on objective evidence, such as behavioral changes or performance deterioration, all factors that can warrant an FFD evaluation. This legal framework empowers agencies to act proactively when concerns arise.
Agencies should consider ordering an FFDE when they observe:
- Marked changes in behavior or performance, such as increased absenteeism, tardiness, or erratic conduct.
- Interpersonal conflicts, insubordination, or inappropriate outbursts that disrupt team cohesion or operational effectiveness.
- Substance abuse concerns, including being intoxicated or hungover while on duty, which can compromise judgment and safety.
- Citizen complaints, especially those involving excessive force, poor decision-making, or inappropriate conduct.
- Signs of psychological distress, such as fatigue, disorientation, emotional instability, or expressions of hopelessness.
These indicators, particularly when observed in combination or over time, may suggest that an officer is struggling with underlying psychological issues that could impair their ability to perform their job safely and effectively.
Supervisors play a critical role in identifying potential triggers for FFD evaluations. They must be trained to recognize behavioral red flags and document incidents thoroughly. Objective documentation, such as performance reviews, incident reports, and peer observations, provides the foundation for legally defensible decisions. Agencies should also ensure that their policies clearly outline the criteria and procedures for initiating an FFD evaluation.
Conclusion
Agencies must act proactively. When objective evidence suggests an officer may be impaired, initiating a fitness-for-duty evaluation is not only legally sound—it’s essential for maintaining operational integrity and public trust. By recognizing key triggers and responding appropriately, law enforcement agencies can support officer wellness, reduce liability, and uphold the standards of public safety.
