Here are some highlights from other posts under this section:

The name of the evaluation probably will not matter if you end up in federal court. Calling it a Fit for Duty or an FCE will carry no weight as compared to how the test was used to qualify or disqualify an individual for work. The burden is on evaluators to structure the test to comply with federal rules. Several of the current FCE "systems" do not comply with the current Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the EEOC Guidelines for Employment Evaluations.”  Roy

I would call the referral source and clarify what they want first.
The term Fit For Duty evaluation is often used to describe a form of testing that is often used for very specific vocations-like Rescue Workers and Police Officers. It includes certain cardiovascular tests (running 2 miles in less than 12 minutes, for example) and lifting certain amounts of weights (~100 lbs.). In other words, it is a test to evaluate fitness for a particular job where public safety is involved-to my understanding. I have never had a request for this particular testing, and would need to learn more about the criteria-which may be specific to each employer/city. On the other hand-the referral source may be under the impression that you can do this to eliminate work related injuries for WalMart applicants!! So, call the referral source and clarify what they want/expect. Significant caution and education in ADA law need to be observed before jumping into something like this.   Jim

Some additional comments;  The employer would need to have any practice backed up by well documented and established “Policies and Procedures”.  This could include anything like a return after an absence like heart surgery.  To selectively pick individuals for testing, and not others would make the employer more exposed to litigation-refer to the point directly above.   I think using the POPP test would be a wise choice-as long as it was well developed.  The employer would be less exposed to litigation if they have a structured protocol for an incumbent that did not meet the job demands.  Refer to the point at the top of this paragraph.   Also, the employer would have to have some very good points to fire someone who was very recently employed in this position.  Make sure you double check all of your cutpoints and have all of your ducks in a row!

I have not been Matheson trained on FCEs; I plan on training in 2012.  I have an employer who is interested in testing all his workers once a year ("fit for duty") as this particular position is very physically demanding.  I am trained in post-offer screenings and have developed a post-offer test for this position.  Would I use this post-offer test as the fit-for-duty test?  And if so, then what are my employer's options if the person(s) is/are not able to perform the essential functions of the job?  Can they terminate? Do they need to provide reasonable accomodations?  I am aware that am employer can request an FCE as long as it relates back to business necessity and the employee is not safe (James vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co,).  Can the employer request this of all his employees in that particular job description or can he just pick randomly?  Thank you!

Rebekah 

Recent federal court cases raise the level of scrutiny of FCE and Fit for Duty in both job offer AND return to work cases. We all need to get up to speed on any workers compensation evaluation that may include "return to work, same job, same employer". The rules have changed in the past 8 months. A couple of leads:

1. I do a court case review on the first Thursday of each month. You can join the 2 p.m. eastern time webinar by going to the Matheson website and signing up. About half the cases we review are ADA, the other are ERISA. Both of these areas carry opportunity and peril for the evaluator. The federal courts are chaning how FCE is practiced in the U.S.

2. The name of the evaluation probably will not matter if you end up in federal court. Calling it a Fit for Duty or an FCE will carry no weight as compared to how the test was used to qualify or disqualify an individual for work. The burden is on evaluators to structure the test to comply with federal rules. Several of the current FCE "systems" do not comply with the current Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the EEOC Guidelines for Employment Evaluations.

I work in HR and we have a fit for duty that we use in extreme cases- as Jenn stated in the above comment-this is always to be approached with significan caution due to the ADA laws. When we have a fit for duty- we have a form that we ask a physician to complete based on the employees' job responsibilities- we usually attach the job/position description.

Hello!

This is what our clinical advisor had to say:

I would call the referral source and clarify what they want first.
The term Fit For Duty evaluation is often used to describe a form of testing that is often used for very specific vocations-like Rescue Workers and Police Officers. It includes certain cardiovascular tests (running 2 miles in less than 12 minutes, for example) and lifting certain amounts of weights (~100 lbs.). In other words, it is a test to evaluate fitness for a particular job where public safety is involved-to my understanding. I have never had a request for this particular testing, and would need to learn more about the criteria-which may be specific to each employer/city. On the other hand-the referral source may be under the impression that you can do this to eliminate work related injuries for WalMart applicants!! So, call the referral source and clarify what they want/expect. Significant caution and education in ADA law need to be observed before jumping into something like this.
Jim

Hope this helps!
Take care and good luck,

Jenn