Case 1 Situation 2 During The Taking Of Some Route

Case 1 Situation 2situation 2 During The Taking Of Some Routine Te

During the taking of some routine tests for promotion, a company learns that there is a high probability that one of the employees is abusing drugs and is a pathological liar. The firm decides not to promote him and instead fires him. He comes to see you for counseling because he is depressed. Has the company acted ethically? Legally? What responsibility do you have toward this client? (Neukrug, Fawcett, 2015)

When faced with such a scenario, it is crucial to approach the situation systematically through ethical decision-making frameworks and legal considerations. The dilemma revolves around whether the company's action of firing an employee based on test results and the subsequent ethical and legal implications of that decision, especially when the individual seeks counseling for depression.

First, identifying the problem involves recognizing the conflict between the company's right to maintain a drug-free workplace and the employee's rights to fair treatment and privacy. The potential issues include confidentiality, the validity of the testing procedures, discrimination, and employment law compliance.

Reviewing relevant ethical guidelines, such as those outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA), underscores the importance of confidentiality, informed consent, and non-discrimination in testing and employment practices. The APA emphasizes that psychologists must ensure tests are valid, culturally appropriate, and used ethically (APA, 2017). In the context of counseling the employee, confidentiality and the scope of information shared must be carefully managed.

Regarding applicable laws, employment discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and state laws protect employees from discrimination based on disabilities or health conditions, including substance abuse if properly managed. Firing an employee solely based on drug tests could be challenged if it violates these statutes, particularly if the employee has a history of substance abuse treatment or is in recovery (Davis & Peloquin, 2020).

Consultation with colleagues or ethical review boards is essential to navigate complex issues, ensuring that decisions align with legal standards and ethical practices. Such collaboration can help clarify whether the company's policy was applied consistently and whether the employee was afforded fair opportunity and due process.

Considering possible courses of action includes advising the company to implement policies that balance safety with fairness, such as offering treatment or rehabilitation options, rather than immediate termination. From a clinical perspective, counseling the employee should be based on an assessment of his mental health, providing support for depression while respecting his confidentiality and rights. The counselor must also clarify the limits of confidentiality, especially if any legal mandates or workplace policies compel disclosure.

Evaluating the consequences of each decision involves weighing the safety of the workplace, the rights and well-being of the employee, and the company's legal liabilities. Terminating employment without fair processes may lead to legal actions and damage to organizational reputation. Conversely, ignoring potential risks could compromise workplace safety.

Deciding on the best course of action involves advocating for policies that emphasize rehabilitation, fair treatment, and adherence to ethical and legal standards. The counselor has a responsibility to support the employee’s mental health needs while advising the organization on best practices that respect legal requirements and uphold workplace ethics.

Paper For Above instruction

In the scenario where a company, during routine testing for promotion, discovers that an employee may be abusing drugs and is a pathological liar, ethical and legal considerations become paramount. The company’s decision to fire the employee based on these test results raises questions about the rightfulness of their actions and the responsibilities of mental health professionals involved in counseling such individuals.

Understanding whether the company has acted ethically hinges on examining the validity of their testing procedures and their application of policies. Ethically, organizations must adhere to standards that prevent discrimination or wrongful termination. As per the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017), it is crucial that tests used in employment settings are valid, reliable, and administered ethically. If the drug tests lacked validity or if the employee was not given an opportunity to explain or seek help, the company could be seen as acting unethically.

From a legal perspective, employment laws such as the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and the ADA prohibit discrimination based on health conditions unless it directly impacts job performance and safety. The ADA, in particular, emphasizes that individuals with substance abuse issues are protected unless they are currently engaging in illegal drug use or pose a threat (Davis & Peloquin, 2020). If an employee is in recovery or participating in treatment, firing them solely for their history may constitute discrimination and violate anti-discrimination laws.

As mental health professionals, counselors have a duty to prioritize confidentiality, informed consent, and cultural competence. They also have an obligation to ensure that their assessments and interventions do not perpetuate bias or discrimination (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). In this case, counseling the employee involves providing mental health support for depression, which may stem from the stress of job loss or personal struggles related to substance abuse.

Fulfilling their responsibility, counselors should facilitate the employee’s mental health recovery, advocate for fair treatment, and educate the employee about workplace rights and options. They must also clarify the limitations of confidentiality, particularly if legal or organizational policies require disclosure of certain information.

Consultation with colleagues, legal experts, or ethical committees is critical to navigate these complex issues. Such consultation ensures that actions taken are aligned with ethical standards and legal mandates, reducing the risk of harm and liability.

Regarding possible courses of action, organizations could adopt policies emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment, providing resources for treatment, and implementing fair testing procedures. The employee’s rights should be balanced with workplace safety concerns, promoting a supportive environment that encourages recovery and fair employment practices.

The consequences of different decisions are significant. Immediate termination without due process could lead to legal repercussions and damage to the organization’s reputation. Conversely, providing support and considering legal protections can foster a fair, ethical, and safe workplace.

The most ethical and responsible approach is to ensure that employment decisions comply with legal standards, uphold the employee’s dignity, and promote his mental health recovery. Counselors play a key role in supporting the individual’s well-being while guiding organizations to adopt humane and lawful policies.

References

• American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code of Ethics. American Counseling Association.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
• Davis, R. R., & Peloquin, S. (2020). Employment Law and Substance Abuse: Protecting Human Rights in the Workplace. Journal of Workplace Rights, 15(2), 123-140.
• Neukrug, E., & Fawcett, M. (2015). Counseling Ethics and Decision Making. Cengage Learning.