Question:

How should the issues of forced resignation and medication misuse be handled in the evaluation and report for an applicant with a history of anxiety and prior forced resignation, given the concerns about his use of someone else’s prescription?

Main Points:

1. Reason for Resignation: The applicant was asked to resign from his previous position as a deputy, allegedly due to a divorce and the sheriff’s personal beliefs. Since sheriff's offices are not required to have a legitimate reason for termination, unless there is clear evidence of a policy violation or investigation, it’s reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt. It’s possible the resignation was due to optics rather than misconduct.

2. Background Investigation: Encourage the background investigator to conduct a thorough investigation into the forced resignation to ensure there are no underlying issues.

3. Manifestation of Anxiety: Determine if there is any evidence that the applicant’s anxiety is impacting his work or is not being managed properly. If there is no active anxiety affecting his performance, the primary concern becomes the misuse of medication.

4. Medication Misuse: The applicant has been taking his mother’s Lexapro for the past year without a prescription. This raises several concerns:

1. • Irregular Medication Supply: It’s unlikely the mother has enough extra medication to provide a steady supply, suggesting the applicant may not be taking it consistently.

   • Lack of Medical Supervision: The applicant is not being monitored by a healthcare professional, which is necessary for managing his condition.

   • Legal Issues: Taking someone else’s prescription is illegal (a felony in NC), which the applicant should be aware of as a deputy.

Answer:

1. 1. Note in the report that the medication issue could not be verified due to the lack of a current prescription and provider.

   2. Highlight the necessity for the applicant to meet regularly with a professional to properly monitor his medication.

   3. Inform the employer that the applicant is taking medication without a prescription, which is both unwise and illegal, without specifying that it is from a family member (to comply with GINA).

Assuming no active anxiety and no known misconduct leading to the forced resignation, there is not enough to classify the applicant as Not Suitable (NS). However, the report should emphasize the need for proper medical supervision and the illegality of his current medication practice. This balanced approach allows the employer to make an informed decision while ensuring that the applicant’s potential issues are addressed.

Question:

Considering the reported behavior, including intentional and repeated sexual harassment, resignation during an ongoing investigation, and invalid CPI and PAI results, should he be classified as Not Suitable (NS) or is there a case for recommending him with a WS pending further review?

Answer:

Based on the information provided:

• Intentional and Repeated Sexual Harassment: His behavior, described as touching another officer inappropriately and making crass comments, is a clear case of sexual harassment. Despite his claim of it being "boys being boys," such behavior is both unprofessional and unacceptable.

• Resignation During Investigation: His decision to resign while under investigation further raises concerns. This could be interpreted as an attempt to evade the consequences of his actions, which is a red flag.

• Invalid CPI and PAI Results: The invalid results on these assessments add another layer of concern, as they could indicate potential issues with his psychological profile that are not being fully captured or assessed.

Given these factors, Not Suitable (NS) is the more appropriate recommendation. The behavior described is blatant and repeated, which suggests a pattern rather than isolated incidents. Furthermore, the resignation during an ongoing investigation and the invalid assessment results compound the concerns, making a strong case for NS.

Recommending WS could be considered if there were mitigating factors or if further investigation could clarify the situation. However, given the severity and repeated nature of the harassment, NS is the more prudent choice to protect the integrity of the hiring process and the safety of the work environment.

Answer: Given the applicant's drinking habits, which include binge drinking, it is reasonable to rate him as Not Suitable (NS). Here are a few points to consider and include in your report:

1. Binge Drinking: Drinking six to eight beverages up to three times a week is considered binge drinking and is problematic for his health.

2. Emergency Response: This level of alcohol consumption renders him unable to be called in for emergencies and puts him at risk of driving-related offenses.

3. Work Performance: It will be virtually impossible for him not to show up to work occasionally slightly hungover and/or with alcohol in his system, which can lead to issues like tardiness and absenteeism.

4. Alcohol Problems in FFDs: Alcohol problems are a significant issue in fitness-for- duty evaluations. Eliminating candidates with such habits from the hiring process is crucial.

Additionally, consider excluding minor details such as buying alcohol for a minor 14 years ago or driving after two shots four years ago, as they detract from the primary concern. Focus on the volume and frequency of his alcohol consumption to make a stronger point.

If you decide to go with Weak But Suitable (WBS), consider adding the following verbiage:

• "In light of his pattern of alcohol consumption, it is recommended he be thoroughly educated on the department's zero-tolerance policy to ensure he never reports to work with alcohol in his system."

• "It would be prudent to educate him on the reality that he represents the *** PD at all times, both on and off duty. As such, any troublesome off-duty alcohol-related behaviors put the professional reputation of the **** PD at risk."

• "Given his current rate of alcohol consumption, unless this matter were to be dramatically reduced, he would likely not be a good candidate in the future for an assignment that involved him being on call (e.g., CID, SWAT, etc.) as he could not be relied upon to report to work for emergencies during his off-duty hours."

Question:

Given the case of a 25-year-old male recently terminated by the prior agency for alleged insubordination, lying, falsifying reports, and surreptitiously recording a conversation with his sergeant, should we deem him not suitable or issue a strongly-worded WBS with a reminder for thorough vetting by the hiring department?

Answer:

Unless there is evidence of blatant integrity issues or defiant personality traits that will clearly affect his next employment, a very strongly-worded WBS is recommended. This should include a stern reminder for the hiring department's background investigator to ensure all red flags have been thoroughly investigated. If there are any unresolved concerns or substantial evidence of problematic behavior, these should be highlighted in the report.

Key Question:
When do prior misconduct and integrity concerns rise to the level of a psychological disqualification versus remaining within the scope of the background investigation?

Answer:
Applicants may present with a history of prior misconduct, including policy violations, insubordination, or past integrity concerns. While these issues are important and may raise valid concerns about judgment, accountability, and reliability, they do not automatically equate to a psychological disqualification.

In the absence of clear underlying psychological factors—such as significant emotional dysregulation, cognitive impairment, untreated mental health conditions, or maladaptive behavioral patterns—these concerns are generally considered non-clinical in nature. As such, they fall within the purview of the background investigation and the agency’s overall risk tolerance.

The role of the psychological evaluation in these cases is to identify and highlight any relevant behavioral patterns, note the applicant’s level of insight and accountability, and ensure the hiring agency is aware of the concerns. However, the ultimate decision regarding whether prior misconduct is acceptable rests with the agency.

Summary:
Prior misconduct alone, without accompanying psychological concerns, does not typically support a Not Suitable determination. Recommend deferring to the agency’s discretion while ensuring all concerns are clearly documented and understood.