The evaluation found no clinical pathology – yet the employer still fired her
A Tennessee appeals court reinstated a sheriff's sergeant after ruling her employer wrongly relied on a flawed fitness-for-duty psychological evaluation to justify termination.
In a March 23 decision, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reversed a lower court and upheld a local civil service board's order reinstating Vatisha Evans-Barken to her position with the Madison County Sheriff's Department – a conclusion that could leave the county on the hook for up to a decade of back pay.
The case traces back to 2014, when Evans-Barken, who had risen to the rank of Sergeant and held Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification, requested medical leave. After she exhausted her FMLA leave, the department terminated her. A civil service commission reversed that termination, and a court affirmed the reversal in early 2016.
When Evans-Barken attempted to return, then-Sheriff John Mehr required her to undergo a psychological evaluation because she had been away from active duty for more than six months. The department hired Dr. Emily Davis, a licensed psychological examiner, to conduct the assessment.
That evaluation is where the trouble began – and where the case carries its sharpest lessons for HR professionals.
Dr. Davis's testing included a brief conversation lasting ten to fifteen minutes, an intake form, and several hours of computer-generated test questions. Her report noted that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory clinical scales showed no pathology and all scales within normal limits. No impairment under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was identified. Yet Dr. Davis concluded that Evans-Barken was not qualified for POST certification and reported as much to the state POST Commission. Sheriff Mehr terminated Evans-Barken on April 5, 2016, citing the failed exam.
At a subsequent hearing before the Civil Service Board, two expert psychologists testified on Evans-Barken's behalf and challenged the evaluation. One performed her own fitness-for-duty assessment and found no psychiatric problem and no symptoms impairing Evans-Barken's ability to do the job. The other testified that Dr. Davis's methods deviated significantly from accepted practice and that the brief interview was insufficient to support a valid conclusion. He also noted that Dr. Davis had omitted a test from her report.
Dr. Davis testified that her conclusions were based on her belief that Evans-Barken had been diagnosed with PTSD, drawn from a prior hearing transcript. The appeals court found that characterization to be somewhat of a mischaracterization of the transcript. Dr. Davis acknowledged she never asked Evans-Barken a single question about PTSD during the evaluation and conceded she was not qualified to diagnose the condition.
Tennessee law requires that a disqualifying psychological finding be tied to a specific DSM-listed impairment that affects the officer's ability to perform essential job functions. The appeals court found that threshold was never met.
After years of procedural back-and-forth, the Board reconsidered the full evidentiary record in 2023 and ruled that the testimony of Evans-Barken's two expert psychologists was more credible and reliable. It ordered Evans-Barken reinstated. A trial court judge reversed that decision, but the appeals court disagreed, finding the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that its credibility determinations were entitled to deference.
The court also noted that the POST Commission never actually revoked Evans-Barken's certification and never sent her any notice of adverse action. Evans-Barken testified, without dispute, that she was currently POST certified and working in a certified law enforcement position with another department.
Under the Madison County Sheriff's Civil Service Law of 2015, an employee whose termination is disapproved is entitled to reinstatement with full pay and rights from the date of discharge. The court remanded the case for any further proceedings on back pay, if necessary.
For HR professionals, the case is a pointed reminder that fitness-for-duty evaluations must actually support the conclusion an employer draws from them. An evaluation that finds no clinical pathology yet still recommends disqualification – without establishing the causal link the law requires – is a shaky foundation for a termination decision. When that foundation crumbles, the cost is not just legal exposure. In this case, it may amount to ten years of back pay.
