Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Letter to Sheppard Pratt -- July 1993

July 12, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008

Ms. Suzanne Reynolds
Director
Sheppard Pratt Employee
  Assistance Programs
2033 M  Street, NW
Washington, DC

Dear Ms. Reynolds:

I still await a statement of Sheppard Pratt's confidentiality policy, which we discussed at our meeting on July 7, 1993.

I submit the following draft statement for your consideration.

Sheppard Pratt Employee Assistance Programs does not involve itself in any manner in the personnel decisions of employers.

If an employer were to communicate to Sheppard Pratt a concern regarding the mental state of an employee, Sheppard Pratt would direct the employer to have the employee arrange a consultation with a Sheppard Pratt counselor.  Further, the employer's concerns regarding the employee and the Sheppard Pratt counselor's recommendations in the matter would be recorded on a Sheppard Pratt Employee Assistance Programs Employer Consultation Intake Form, which would be retained in the client's file.

An employer's statement that Sheppard Pratt did not oppose an employer's decision to terminate an employee is consistent with Sheppard Pratt's policy not to involve itself in an employer's personnel decisions and should not be read to imply that Sheppard Pratt concurred in a termination decision. 

I believe that a statement along the above lines would be appropriate.  Thank you very much for your assistant in this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

1 comment:

Gary Freedman said...

Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources, Inc.

July 14, 1993

Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

Dear Mr. Freedman

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry about your case file.

With regard to your question concerning EAP consultation with Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld:

We have no record of contact concerning you with either Dennis Race or Malcolm Lassman.

With regard to your question about Sheppard Pratt EAP's role in providing consultation to employers regarding employees whose job performance is affected by personal problems (attendance, quality/quantity of work or workplace conduct):

When an employer calls to discuss a troubled employee, we inquire about the history of documentation to determine if the employee's problem is chronic or in early stages. If the employer hasn't documented any earlier problem we suggest a statement of concern and an informal referral to the EAP. This can often prevent the problems from intensifying if the client follows up with recommendations. If the problem is chronic and there is documentation of a pattern of behavior impacting on job performance over a long period of time, we recommend a formal referral to the EAP. The purpose is to provide confidential intervention/support or accommodation to the problem which if addressed could ultimately lead to termination.

We do not tell employers to terminate employees. If an employer has months of documentation and has followed internal disciplinary procedures, i.e., providing verbal, written and suspension as counseling techniques it is the company's decision to fire for cause. Generally, employers do not call to ask EAP advice about terminating employees. They may call us to inform us about their decision if they know the employee was referred to the EAP, yet the performance problems continued over a long period of time. If we do not oppose the decision, this does not imply that we concur in the decision to terminate the employee.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Reynolds, M.A., CEAP
Assistant Director
Director -- Washington Operations
Employee Assistance Programs

SR/ab

record on appeal at 63-64