Wrongfully Branding Law Enforcement Candidates as Psychologically Unsuitable Due to a History of Mental Health Care
- Dr. Mark Lerner
- Apr 26
- 2 min read
by Mark D. Lerner, Ph.D.
Clinical & Forensic Psychologist
Law enforcement agencies have an obligation to ensure that candidates for police officer positions are psychologically fit to withstand the pressures of service. Understandably, candidates with histories of serious psychopathology—including suicidal ideation, or self-harm present potential liabilities to agencies and the public they serve. In such cases, disqualification may be justified to mitigate risk.
However, per se disqualifications based solely on a candidate’s history of seeking mental health care—without evidence of current impairment—are misguided and legally questionable. Availing oneself of counseling or psychotherapeutic intervention is an adaptive, healthy choice that reflects proactive attitude toward emotional wellness. Research indicates that officers who engage in mental health care are less likely to develop psychological disorders during their careers (Wisco, Marx, Keane, & Sloan, 2023).
Furthermore, candidates who have previously demonstrated the willingness to seek help are more likely to pursue mental health services again in the future if needed—an invaluable quality in the high-stress environment of law enforcement (Miller, Johnson, & Roberts, 2022). Disqualifying such individuals not only deprives agencies of emotionally intelligent candidates but also may constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals based on a history of mental impairment if they are presently capable of performing essential job functions (42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)).
Ultimately, branding candidates as psychologically unsuitable merely because they sought help in the past is a failure to distinguish between past adaptive behavior and current psychological wellness. Law enforcement agencies must utilize individualized assessments rather than perpetuating stigma and risking both legal liability and the loss of exceptional candidates.