Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed fit-for-duty language after members warn it could single out mental-health leave
Summary
Dayton council paused an update to the city'9s personnel policy after members said a proposed fit-for-duty clause risked discriminating against employees who take mental-health leave and may not align with the ADA; staff agreed to redraft language and return it for review.
The Dayton City Council voted to table a proposed revision to the personnel policy that would add explicit fit-for-duty language after several council members said the draft could unfairly single out mental-health leaves and invite legal risk.
The discussion focused on language added to item M that staff said was intended to clarify how the city would require medical fitness assessments before an employee returned to duty. "If you leave on a mental-health-related reason, then it is a blanket statement" that a fit-for-duty exam will be required, Councilmember S10 said, arguing the wording risked discrimination because mental health falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
City staff, represented at the meeting by the city administrator (S2) and the city attorney (S4), said the provision was written to address council concerns about process and transparency. The city attorney said an appendix describing what a "fit-for-duty" evaluation would cover had been sent during the meeting to clarify scope. The staff also noted that HR recommended not placing certain procedural items in the handbook but that the intent of the new language was to document the process for employees.
Council members urged a narrower, workplace-necessity framing. "I'd rather the policy said the city may require a fitness-for-duty evaluation when there'9s an objective job-related concern that an employee may not be able to safely perform essential job functions," S10 said, urging wording that would apply to any health condition and be consistent with ADA and business-necessity tests.
After extended debate about whether the proposed text distinguished medical necessity from perceived stigma around mental-health leaves, the council voted to table the personnel-policy item and directed staff to work with the city attorney and the HR consultant on revised language. Staff said they would incorporate suggested wording that focuses on objective business necessity, clarifies who initiates a request, and ensures the policy does not single out particular diagnoses.
The tabling motion means the city will postpone adopting the fit-for-duty changes until the council reviews a rewritten draft. Staff also signaled they will provide clearer guidance about how fit-for-duty requests will be triggered and handled administratively.
