[IPAC-List] question for participants about PATs

Dennis Doverspike dennisdoverspike at gmail.com
Thu Mar 20 16:19:54 EDT 2014


I am just guessing because digging deeper would take more work than I am
willing to do without compensation.

But the clue to the issue to me is your mention of the State Department of
Transportation. That makes me wonder whether there are specific State Laws
or certification standards with regard to transportation professionals,
those are set out by statute, and so the RPF is just being issued in
conformance with those laws.

I do find a trend of agencies and jurisdictions being more worried about
dealing with state laws, statutes or certifications standards than with
Federal Laws, when it comes to physical testing. Having said that, we are
now starting to get into an area of legal issues beyond my ability to offer

Best regards


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Gene Carmean <GCarmean at med-tox.com> wrote:

> Hello All:


> Within the last month I have reviewed two Requests for Proposals from

> public agencies. In both cases they were from state Departments of

> Transportation (Oregon and Colorado). These RFPs seem very strange to me

> and I am wondering if this is an emerging trend. I have one of the RFPs

> and will email it to anyone who wants it.


> Both the RFPs ask for physical ability test(s) but no specific jobs are

> mentioned. It appears they wish to devise a test(s) for the entire

> agency.


> The RFPs mention the ADA but ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have

> not seen a federal ADA case about physical ability testing. Perhaps one or

> more exists. Most of the cases I have seen are about gender

> discrimination. I know of one case in California under state law where the

> employee was disabled but that one was settled before trial. I wonder why

> there is such emphasis on the ADA but the Civil Rights Act is ignored? The

> Uniform Guidelines are never mentioned.


> The qualifications to perform these services are usually limited to a

> nurse or a physical therapist. While I have not looked at the curriculum

> of nursing students, I have checked ten graduate and undergraduate schools

> of physical therapy. In that search I found not a single course on

> employment law, statistics, industrial psychology, educational psychology,

> exercise science, or any other relevant field. I wonder why therapists and

> nurses are included but those in the relevant fields are excluded?


> Most troubling of all is that the Colorado RFP specifies that the old DOT

> job analysis method from the 1930s be utilized, even though the National

> Academy of Sciences rejected this as a viable job analysis methodology more

> than 34 years ago. Maybe I am missing something, but this seems odd to me.


> I was looking for the group for some comments on this. I had never seen

> RFPs as strange as these, but to see two within a month is a little

> unnerving.




> Gene Carmean

> MED-TOX Health Services

> 3350 Shelby Street, Ste. 200

> Ontario, California 91764


> 909 944 3181 Tel


> www.med-tox.com



> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list



Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)
Independent Consultant
Professor of Psychology, University of Akron
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product
for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message
in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic
transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system
and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140320/1a86b1bb/attachment.htm

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list