Revised 9/04
EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP
TRAINING PROGRAM IN PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
GRIEVANCE AND DUE PROCESS GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
In this document, we begin with a discussion of the training program, with particular
emphasis on program goals, responsibilities, and expectations of the fellows. This is followed by
a definition of competence problems and a discussion of principles that guide the due process
procedure. This information is provided in an effort to set the stage for a description of the two
aspects of our due process guidelines and procedures: (1) grievance procedures by faculty,
including supervisory actions, remediation strategies, and the filing of formal grievances; and (2)
grievance procedures by fellows. Steps that fellows can take to challenge the aforementioned
supervisory actions are outlined. This document reflects annual input from members of the
Postdoctoral Fellowship Steering Committee and the class of postdoctoral fellows. It should be
noted that fellows and faculty are also expected to abide by the guidelines of the hiring
institution.
Training Program
Goals
The Fellowship Program aims to provide the fellow with the opportunity (in terms of
setting, experience, and supervision) to begin assuming the professional role of a psychologist
consistent with the scientist/practitioner model. This role entails the integration of previous
training with a further development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to the following
competency domains: direct service (psychological assessment, intervention, consultation);
scientific foundations and research; supervision; professional development; individual and
cultural diversity; and ethical and legal practice. The training program is committed to providing
a learning environment in which a fellow can meaningfully explore personal issues that relate to
his/her professional functioning.
Responsibilities
In accordance with these goals, the training program assumes a number of general
responsibilities as described below.
 The training program will provide fellows with information regarding relevant
professional standards and guidelines, as well as offer appropriate forums to discuss the
implementation of such standards
 The training program will provide fellows with information regarding relevant legal
regulations that govern the practice of psychology, as well as offer appropriate forums to
discuss the implementation of such regulations.
 The training program faculty will continuously provide informal verbal feedback to the
fellow in an ongoing fashion (formative feedback).
 The training program faculty will provide written evaluations of the fellow's progress at
six-month intervals (formative and summative feedback). Feedback from the assessments
will facilitate fellows' change and growth as professionals, by acknowledging strengths
and identifying performance or conduct areas that need improvement. Evaluations will
1

address the fellows' knowledge, skills, and attitudes as related to each of the
aforementioned competency domains. These written evaluations will be shared with the
fellow in a meeting, and recommendations for continued improvement will be discussed.
In the meetings, differences between fellows’ and supervisors’ appraisals are expected to
surface, and in most cases will be resolved. After meeting, the supervisor and the fellow
will sign the written evaluation and forward it to the Fellowship Director. Following the
six-month evaluation, the fellow, the primary supervisors, and the Fellowship Director
will meet to review progress, address areas of concern, and make modifications to the
fellow’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Contract to better meet his or her training needs and the
training program’s requirements.
In accepting the above responsibilities, the training program will provide appropriate
mechanisms by which behavior that negatively affects professional functioning is brought
to the attention of the fellow. The training program also will maintain procedures,
including grievance and due process guidelines, to address and remediate perceived
problems as they relate to professional standards, professional competency and/or
professional functioning. At the beginning of the training year, all postdoctoral fellows
will be provided with these Due Process Guidelines, which describe the process that will
be followed in the event of a grievance.
Rights of Fellows
Fellows have the following rights.
 The right to be trained by professionals who behave in accordance with the APA ethical
guidelines.
 The right to be treated with professional respect, that recognizes the training and
experience the fellow brings with him/her.
 The right to ongoing evaluation that is specific, respectful, and pertinent.
 The right to engage in an ongoing evaluation of the training program experience.
 The right to initiate an informal resolution of problems that might arise in the training
experience (supervision assignments, etc.) through discussion or request letter to the
faculty member concerned and/or to the Fellowship Director.
 The right to due process and appeal.
 Service to deal with problems after informal resolution has failed (either with supervisor
and/or Fellowship Director) or to determine when rights have been infringed upon.
 The right to respect for one's personal privacy.
Expectations of Fellows
The following are the training program’s expectations for the fellows.
 Prior to the initiation of the postdoctoral fellowship training year, fellows are expected to
have attained the minimal standards of competence in the above-noted competency
domains.
 Postdoctoral fellows will complete a Postdoctoral Fellowship Contract in collaboration
with their supervisors at the beginning of the training year. This competency-based
contract outlines the direct service (psychological assessment, intervention, consultation),
scientific foundations and research, supervision, and professional development
expectations for the fellow. Within each of the competency domains, attention is paid to
knowledge of and conformity to relevant ethical and legal considerations, and
2







professional standards, as well as sensitivity to diversity. This contract also outlines
training expectations in terms of participation in supervision, seminars, and Grand
Rounds. This contract serves as the basis for the formal evaluations of fellow’s
performance.
Fellows are expected to make adequate progress in each of these competency domains in
training as specified in their fellowship contract and as assessed by periodic evaluations.
Within the field of psychology, interpersonal competence is critically important. As such,
within a developmental framework, and with due regard for the inherent power difference
between students and faculty, fellows are expected to demonstrate sufficient: (a)
interpersonal and professional competence (e.g., the ways in which student-trainees relate
to clients, peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse
backgrounds or histories); (b) self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-evaluation (e.g.,
knowledge of the content and potential impact of one's own beliefs and values on clients,
peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse backgrounds
or histories); (c) openness to processes of supervision (e.g., the ability and willingness to
explore issues that either interfere with the appropriate provision of care or impede
professional development or functioning); and (d) resolution of issues or problems that
interfere with professional development or functioning in a satisfactory manner (e.g., by
responding constructively to feedback from supervisors or program faculty; by the
successful completion of remediation plans; by participating in personal therapy in order
to resolve issues or problems).
Upon successful completion of the fellowship, the fellow is expected to be able to
function independently as a psychologist.
Fellows are expected to be cognizant of and abide by the guidelines as stated in the APA
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct; Standards for Providers of
Psychological Services; Specialty Guidelines; Guidelines on Multicultural Education,
Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists; Guidelines
for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, and any other relevant
professional documents or standards that address psychologists' ethical, personal or legal
responsibilities.
Fellows must be cognizant of and abide by the laws and regulations governing the
practice of psychology as included in appropriate legal documents. Such documents
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the Georgia State Board of Examiners of
Psychologists Law.
It is recognized by the training program that mere knowledge of and exposure to the
above guidelines and standards are not sufficient. Fellows need to demonstrate the ability
to integrate relevant professional standards into their own repertoire of professional and
personal behavior, as well as a capacity for ethical decision-making. Examples of such
integration include a demonstrated awareness of ethical issues when they arise in work
with clients, appropriate decision-making in other ethical situations, and awareness of
ethical considerations in their own and other's professional work.
Finally, it is recognized by the training program that there is a relation between level of
personal functioning and effectiveness as a professional psychologist. Fellows are
expected to function at a personal level that allows them to meet all professional, legal,
and ethical expectations. When fellows are experiencing personal difficulties that they
are aware are interfering with their professional competence, they are expected to inform
3
their supervisors and the Director of the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in a timely
fashion.
Competence and Competence Problems
Definitions
Epstein and Hundert (2002) proffered an excellent definition of professional competence
as “the habitual and judicious use of communication, knowledge, technical skills, clinical
reasoning, emotions, values, and reflection in daily practice for the benefit of the individual and
community being served” (p. 227). They further asserted that competence depends on habits of
mind, including attentiveness, critical curiosity, self-awareness, and presence. As such,
competence connotes the capability of critical thinking and analysis; the successful exercise of
professional judgment in assessing a situation and making decisions about what to do or not do
based on that assessment; and the ability to evaluate and modify one’s decisions, as appropriate,
through reflective practice. These actions must be executed in accord with ethical principles,
standards, guidelines, and values of the profession and require public verification. Competence is
developmental as what is expected differs depending on the individual’s stage of professional
functioning. Further competence is context dependent, as different competencies, aspects of each
competency, and execution of each competency varies depending on the setting and
environment. Competencies are composed of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which as a
coherent group are necessary for professional practice. For the Emory University School of
Medicine Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in Professional Psychology, the fellow is expected to
demonstrate developmentally-appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the following
competency domains: direct service (assessment, intervention, consultation), scientific
foundations and research, supervision, professional development, individual and cultural
diversity, and ethical and legal practice.
An individual’s competence can be viewed on a continuum from highly capable/expert,
to competent for independent practice (expected level at the end of the training program), to
competent in accord with one’s expected level of professional development (expected throughout
the course of the program), to exhibiting behavior indicative of competence concerns, to
manifesting behavior suggestive of competence problems. This document focuses primarily on
competence problems, with some attention paid to competence concerns. While it is a
professional judgment as to when a fellow's behavior is indicative of a competence problem
rather than just a “concern”, for purposes of this document, a “concern” refers to a trainee’s
performance, behaviors, attitudes, or characteristics that may require remediation, but are not
excessive for professionals in training. It is recommended that some of the remediation
strategies described below related to addressing competence problems be implemented when an
aspect of a fellow’s professional functioning becomes a concern. If a concern does not respond to
remediation strategies, it may become a competence problem.
For purposes of this document, a competence problem is defined broadly as: (1) an
inability to exhibit or acquire the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to reach
an acceptable level of performance in each competency-domain outlined in the Postdoctoral
Fellow Contract; (2) an inability and/or unwillingness to acquire and integrate professional
standards (e.g., ethical, legal, diversity) in one’s professional functioning; and/or (3) an inability
to effectively control personal stress, psychological dysfunction, excessive emotional reactions,
and/or interpersonal difficulties that interfere with professional functioning.
4
Characteristics of Competence Problems
Competence problems may arise because of educational or academic deficiencies,
psychological adjustment problems and/or inappropriate emotional responses, inappropriate
management of personal stress, inadequate level of self-directed professional development,
inappropriate use of and/or response to supervision, etc. Behaviors typically become identified
as competence problems when they include one or more of the following characteristics:
 The behavior is not merely a reflection of a knowledge or skill deficit that can be rectified
by academic or didactic training or supervision.
 The quality of services delivered by the fellow is sufficiently negatively affected.
 The behavior has potential for ethical or legal ramifications if not addressed.
 The behavior shows a persistent insensitivity to diversity considerations related to race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability status, veteran’s status, etc.
 The fellow’s emotional difficulties interfere with his or her capacity to perform
competently.
 The fellow’s interpersonal style interferes with his or her intraprofessional and
interdisciplinary relationships with peers, coworkers, supervisors, and/or subordinates.
 The fellow does not acknowledge, understand, or address the concern when it is
identified.
 The trainee's behavior does not change as a function of feedback, remediation efforts,
and/or time.
 A disproportionate amount of attention by training personnel is required.
 The fellow's behavior negatively impacts the public view of the training program or
institution.
 The behavior negatively impacts the fellowship class.
Guiding Principles to Ensure Due Process
The following principles serve to ensure that decisions made by the training program about
fellows are not arbitrary or personally based. These principles ensure that the fellow is provided
ongoing and meaningful feedback, opportunities for remediation, and information about appeals
procedures.
 Presenting fellows with written documentation of the program's expectations related to
professional and personal functioning.
 Stipulating the procedures for evaluation, including when and how evaluations will be
conducted. Such evaluations should occur at meaningful intervals.
 Articulating the various procedures and actions involved in making decisions regarding
problem behaviors.
 Communicating with fellows early and often about how to address problem behaviors.
 Instituting a remediation plan for identified inadequacies, including a time frame for
expected remediation and consequences of not rectifying the inadequacies.
 Providing a written procedure to the fellow that describes how the fellow may appeal the
program's action.
 Ensuring that fellows have sufficient time to respond to any action taken by the program.
 Using input from multiple professional sources when making decisions or
recommendations regarding the fellow's performance.
5

Documenting, in writing and to all relevant parties, the action taken by the program and
its rationale.
Formally Addressing Competence Problems
This section addresses the sequence of supervisory actions to be taken when competence
problems are identified. Attention then is paid to remediation strategies that may be used to
address these competence problems. Finally, there is a discussion of formal grievance
procedures.
Supervisory Actions
If competence problems are noted by a fellow’s supervisor, the following procedures will
be initiated:
 The fellow's supervisor(s) will meet with the Fellowship Director to discuss the problem
and determine what action needs to be taken.
 The fellow will be notified, in writing, that such a review is occurring and will have the
opportunity to provide an oral or written statement.
 In discussing the problem and the fellow's response, the Fellowship Director may adopt
any one or more of the following methods or may take any other appropriate action.
o Issue a verbal warning to the fellow that emphasizes the need to engage in
recommended amelioration strategies in order to alter the competence concern (as
opposed to problem). No record of this action is kept.
o Issue a "Performance Notice" which formally indicates that the faculty is aware of
and concerned with the fellow’s performance, that the problem has been brought
to the attention of the fellow, that the faculty will work with the fellow to specify
the steps necessary to rectify the competence problems, and that the behaviors are
not significant enough to warrant serious action. Remediation strategies described
below should be implemented at this time. A copy of this will be kept in the
fellow’s file.
o Issue a “Probation Notice” which defines a relationship such that the faculty
actively and systematically monitors, for a specific length of time, the degree to
which the fellow addresses, changes and/or otherwise improves the problem
behavior. The fellow must be provided with a written statement that includes: a
description of the actual problem behaviors, the specific recommendations for
rectifying the problem, the time frame for the probation during which the problem
is expected to be ameliorated, and the procedures designed to ascertain whether
the problem has been appropriately rectified. Remediation strategies must be
implemented at this time. A copy of this will be kept in the fellow’s file.
o Take no further action and inform all parties of this decision.
 The Fellowship Director will then meet with the fellow to review the action taken. If
placed on probation, the fellow may choose to accept the conditions or may challenge the
decision. The procedures for challenging the decision are presented below (see
Procedures for Appeal by a Fellow).
 Once the Performance Notice or Probation Status is issued by the Fellowship Director, it
is expected that the fellow’s performance will be reviewed no later than the next formal
evaluation period or, in the case of probation, no later than the time limits identified in
6

the probation statement. If the problem has been rectified to the satisfaction of the
faculty, the fellow and other appropriate individuals will be informed and no further
action will be taken.
If it is determined that the conditions for revoking the probation status have not been
met, the faculty may take any of the following actions:
o Continue the probation for a specific time period, with written notice to the fellow
of ongoing steps that must be taken to ameliorate the problem in the specified
time frame.
o Issue a written “Suspension Notice” stating that the fellow is not allowed to
continue engaging in certain professional activities until there is evidence that the
behavior in question has improved.
o Issue a written “Warning Notice” stating that if the problem behavior does not
change, the fellow will not meet criteria for fellowship graduation.
o Issue a written “Termination Notice” that the fellow will be terminated from the
fellowship program as of the date specified in the notice.
When a combination of the aforementioned interventions do not, after a reasonable time
period, rectify the problem, or when the trainee seems unable or unwilling to alter his/her
behavior, the training program may need to take more formal action, including such actions as:
 Giving the fellow a limited endorsement, including the specification of those settings in
which he/she could function adequately.
 Communicating to the fellow that he or she has not successfully completed the
fellowship, with the possibility of continuing an additional year.
 Terminating the fellow from the training program. This includes issuing of a
“Termination Notice.”
Remediation Strategies
It is important to have meaningful ways to address competence concerns or problems
once they have been identified. The training program therefore, in conjunction with the fellow,
will formulate strategies for remediation of such problems and will implement such strategies
and procedures.
Several possible and perhaps concurrent courses of action designed to remediate
competence problems include, but are not limited to, the following. These remediation strategies
may also be used when addressing competence concerns as well. All of these remediation
strategies need to be appropriately documented and implemented in ways that are consistent with
due process procedures.
 Increasing supervision, either with the same or other supervisors.
 Changing the format, emphasis, and/or focus of supervision.
 Recommending and/or requiring personal therapy in a way that all parties involved have
clarified the manner in which therapy contacts will be used in the fellow evaluation
process.
 Reducing the fellow's clinical or other workload or modifying their schedule in other
ways.
 Requiring specific academic coursework or independent study.
 Recommending, when appropriate, a leave of absence and/or a second fellowship.
 Recommending and assisting in implementing a career shift for the fellow.
7
Formal Grievance Procedure Initiated by Faculty
There may be extreme instances in which the aforementioned procedures are expedited
because of the severity of the problem. This is most likely to occur when the fellow engages in
behavior indicative of professional incompetence (consistent with the definition above); violates
the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, legal standards, or the
policies set forth by the institution or setting in which the fellow is based; when the fellow
behaves in a manner that is insubordinate or exploitative; when the fellow engages in behavior
indicative of discriminatory harassment; or when the fellow’s behavior infringes on the rights,
privileges, and responsibilities of other trainees, faculty, staff, or clients. In such cases, a faculty
member may initiate a formal grievance procedure. Any faculty member may submit to the
Fellowship Director, in writing, a grievance against a fellow for violation of professional and
ethical standards or laws; professional incompetence; or infringement on the rights, privileges or
responsibilities of others. After review by the Fellowship Director, the fellow will receive a
written copy of the grievance. The following steps will then occur:
 The Fellowship Director will convene a Review Panel within 30 days of receiving the
complaint. The panel will consist of the Director, two faculty members selected by the
Director, and two faculty members selected by the fellow. The faculty member bringing
the complaint may not serve on the panel.
 A review hearing will be conducted, chaired by the Fellowship Director, in which the
grievance is heard and the evidence is presented by the faculty making the written
complaint. The fellow retains the right to be present at the hearing, to hear all facts, and
to dispute or explain his or her behavior.
 Within 15 days of the completion of the review hearing, the Review Panel files a written
report, including any recommendations for further action. Decisions made by the Review
Panel will be made by majority vote of the five panel members. The fellow is informed of
the recommendations by the Fellowship Director and through receipt of a copy of the
panel report.
 If the Review Panel finds in favor of the fellow, no further action against the fellow is
taken. The Fellowship Director will consult with the faculty member making the
complaint concerning the decision.
 If the Review Panel finds in favor of the faculty member bringing the grievance, it may
issue to the fellow a written Probation Notice, Suspension Notice, Warning Notice, or
Termination Notice as described above.
 Decisions of the Review Panel may be appealed to an Appeal Committee consisting of
the Dean of the Emory University School of Medicine and the Chair of the Emory
Medical School department that employs the fellow. The decision of the Appeal
Committee is final.
Procedures for Appeal by a Fellow
Fellows who wish to contest supervisory actions and decisions must submit a written
challenge to the Fellowship Director within 10 days of receipt of the faculty decision. Failure to
submit a written challenge within 10 days will be taken as assent to the supervisory actions and
decisions. Once a written challenge is received, the following steps will occur:
 The Fellowship Director will convene a Review Panel consisting of the Director, two
faculty members selected by the Director, and two faculty members selected by the
fellow. The faculty supervisor involved in the dispute may not serve on the panel.
8






A review hearing will be conducted, chaired by the Fellowship Director, in which
evidence is heard from the faculty supervisor. The fellow retains the right to be present
at the hearing, to hear all facts, and to dispute or explain his or her behavior.
Within 15 days of the completion of the review hearing, the Review Panel files a written
report, including any recommendations for further action. Decisions made by the Review
Panel will be made by majority vote of the five panel members. The fellow is informed of
the recommendations by the Fellowship Director and through receipt of a copy of the
panel report.
If the Review Panel finds in favor of the fellow, no further action against the fellow is
taken. The Fellowship Director will consult with the faculty supervisor concerning the
decision.
If the Review Panel finds in favor of the faculty supervisor, the original supervisory
action is implemented.
The Review Panel may, at its discretion, find neither in favor of the supervisor nor the
fellow. It may instead modify the original supervisory action or issue and implement its
own action. In this instance, the Fellowship Director will consult with both the faculty
supervisory and the fellow concerning the decision.
Decisions of the Review Panel may be appealed to an Appeal Committee consisting of
the Dean of the Emory University School of Medicine and the Chair of the Emory
Medical School Department that employs the fellow. The decision of the Appeal
Committee is final.
Grievances Initiated by Fellows
Situations may arise in which a fellow has a complaint or grievance against a faculty
member, staff member, other trainee, or the program itself, and in which the fellow wishes to file
a formal grievance. The following steps are intended to provide the fellow with a means to
resolve perceived conflicts that cannot be resolved by informal means. Fellows who pursue
grievances in good faith will not experience any adverse personal or professional consequences.
Nothing here precludes attempted resolution of difficulties by adjudication at a clinic, hospital,
or university level.
 Prior to filing a formal grievance, the fellow should raise the issue with the supervisor,
staff member, other trainee, or Fellowship Director in an effort to resolve the problem.
 If the matter cannot be resolved, if it is inappropriate to raise the matter with the other
individual, or if the fellow fears potential repercussions, the issue should be brought to
the attention of the Fellowship Director. If the Fellowship Director is involved in the
grievance or is unavailable, the issue should be raised with the Associate Director, who
may function as the Director in responding to the complaint.
 The Fellowship Director will initially attempt to mediate the complaint between the
parties involved.
 If the Fellowship Director can not resolve the matter, the Fellowship Director will choose
an agreeable faculty member, agreeable to the Fellow, and request that individual to
mediate the matter. Written material will be sought from both parties.
 If mediation fails, the Fellowship Director will convene a Review Panel within 30 days of
receiving the written complaint. The panel will consist of the Director, two faculty
members selected by the Director, and two faculty members selected by the fellow. Any
9
party involved in the dispute may not serve on the panel. The Review Panel will review
all written materials (from the fellow, other party, mediation). A review hearing will be
conducted, chaired by the Fellowship Director, in which evidence is heard. All parties in
the dispute retain the right to be present at the hearing, to hear all facts, and to dispute any
evidence or claims presented. Within 15 days of the completion of the review hearing,
the Review Panel files a written report, including any recommendations for further
action. Decisions made by the Review Panel will be made by majority vote of the five
panel members. The fellow is informed of the recommendations by the Fellowship
Director and receives a copy of the panel report. Recommendations of the Review Panel
are forwarded to the appropriate University, Clinic, or Hospital administrator for review
and response. It is the responsibility of the Fellowship Director to follow-up on the
response to these recommendations. Decisions of the Review Panel may be appealed to
an Appeal Committee consisting of the Dean of the Emory University School of
Medicine and the Chair of the Emory Medical School Department that employs the
fellow. The decision of the Appeal Committee is final.
10