Access authorization: reducing legal exposure during the screening process
Due to strong local opposition to the establishment and maintenance of nuclear power facilities, a lawsuit against a large power company is often perceived by the individual juror as an opportunity to strike a blow for the little guy, regardless of the merits of the underlying case. The following suggestions attempt to incorporate the primary concern of jurors that the program should be one designed to minimize the likelihood that an employee will be unfairly terminated or rejected, but without jeopardizing the safety of the facility: (1) any psychological test should be in writing and administered and scored according to professionally accepted criteria. Any employee or applicant receiving an abnormal score should be given an opportunity to retake the test. (2) All employees should be subjected to a structured clinical interview by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, not only those who performed questionably on the written test. Any employee or applicant who does not pass the clinical interview should be given the opportunity to be reexamined by another psychologist or psychiatrist. (3) The employee should be confronted with all adverse data, such as prior history of crime, alcoholism, etc., and be given the opportunity to explain or deny the information. (4) It must be made clear to the employee that the failure to certify him as stable is not the same as certifying that he is unstable. (5) Communication of the test results should be made only to the licensee and the applicant.
- OSTI ID:
- 5578556
- Report Number(s):
- CONF-870601-; TRN: 88-009922
- Journal Information:
- Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc.; (United States), Vol. 54; Conference: Annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society, Dallas, TX, USA, 7 Jun 1987
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Behavioral Health/Employee Assistance. Interim Program Report FY 2020
Museum security and the Thomas Crown Affair.