Portal Submission:

Relevant background: “I was recently terminated from my role as an RBT after leaving work early. I had received prior approval from two supervisors to leave early due to a family matter, which was accurate at the time of the request. However, my plans changed unexpectedly, and I spent that time with friends instead. I did not update the reason for my early departure, which I now recognize could have been communicated. Importantly, no client care, services, or safety were impacted by this change.

During my termination meeting, I was informed that this would not be considered a violation of the Ethics Code, and that no formal ethics report would be filed. However, I was still terminated for what was described as a lapse in professional judgment and behaving with a "lack of integrity". This was my first and only such instance during my time with the organization, and I have no history of misconduct or ethics concerns.

I do have concerns about how my termination was handled in relation to client care. I was removed from my caseload abruptly, and to my knowledge, no transition plan was put in place to ensure continuity and consistency of services for the clients I worked with. As the RBT Ethics Code emphasizes client welfare and minimizing disruptions in service delivery, I would appreciate guidance on whether the lack of a transition process raises ethical concerns under the code.”

Possible solutions: To address the situation, I will submit a written statement for documentation, clarify my perspective respectfully, and acknowledge areas for better communication. I believe organizations should have a clear client transition plan in place when staff are terminated, ensure transparency in decision-making, and allow employees the opportunity to respond when no formal ethics violation has occurred. My company does not have any such plan in place. These steps would help protect both staff and client welfare.

Credentialing: Reporter is an RBT/BA Trainee, supervisor is an LBA

Committee Input (e.g., considerations for pathways forward, potential barriers, potential solutions):

The submitter did not outline any specific codes in their submission, but may best fit within RBT 1.01 Honesty, and RBT 1.02 Professionalism. As far as appropriateness of transitioning case(s), the BACB does not consider RBTs or supervisees to be independent practitioners that are responsible for their own caseloads. Therefore, it is not considered to be an ethics violation of client abandonment. According to Arizona Proposition 206 (Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act), Paid Sick Time is limited to qualifying events, so using Paid Sick Time outside of these conditions may give the employer just cause for termination. Additionally, if the organization has a clearly communicated time-off policy and the submitter used the time off for non-permitted reasons, the reporter may not be upholding their contractual obligations. If no other information is available to the committee, it does not appear that the RBT’s failure to update supervisors about a change in their reason for approved leave rises to the level of a reportable ethics violation.

At-Will Employment Considerations: Arizona is an at-will employment state under A.R.S. § 23-1501, meaning the employer may terminate employment with or without cause. Therefore, termination alone does not violate state law or the BACB Codes unless it is tied to discriminatory practices or retaliation, which were not alleged here.

Relating to the employer’s handling of the termination and transition, per the reporter’s account of client sessions being covered and the RBT being a trainee, it is assumed the employer had appropriate staff to transition the client without discontinuing services. If there were no steps taken to ensure client care, this may raise concerns under Behavior Analyst 3.14 Facilitating Continuity of Services, and Behavior Analyst 3.16 Appropriately Transitioning Services. However, if the LBA supervising the RBT reporter was available to manage the caseload and they believed they were acting in the best interest of the clients, this may not need to be considered. Additionally, knowing the RBT was a Behavior Analyst Trainee, a consideration for providing appropriate feedback and appropriately terminating services must also be considered (Behavior Analyst 4.08 Performance Monitoring and Feedback and 4.12 Appropriately Terminating Supervision, respectively). If supervision hours were not signed off on appropriately, this could raise ethical questions about the employer’s and supervising BCBA’s responsibilities under the Code.

The Committee thanks the reporter for submitting this scenario for review. We commend their thoughtfulness in seeking clarification on these issues and encourage them to continue consulting available resources and ethics guidance when navigating future concerns.

Considerations for exploration:

In accordance with Ethics Code 4.12, the committee recommends that the reportee follows up on any fieldwork hours that have not been signed by the agency and ensure all information is correct for their records. If records are not provided or fieldwork performed is not signed, the committee would recommend that the author attempt to reach out to the supervising BCBA(s) to discuss their concerns.

The committee would encourage the author to explore the following steps as options; this should not be considered legal advice:

1. If you are denied (de-identified) records, write a formal letter to your supervisor(s), outlining your concerns of expected supervisor conduct related to obtaining signatures.
   1. Documentation of your concerns can provide a clear statement for follow-up.
2. If meaningful change is not made to satisfy the ethical code of conduct, the RBT should consider following the complaint guidelines for the Arizona State Licensure Board for refusal to sign off on fieldwork hours if mediation using other, more informal methods does not yield an improved result.
   1. Information on the complaint process can be found here: https://psychboard.az.gov/investigations

Ethics Codes (specific standards that could apply to support/oppose):

• RBT 1.01, 1.02, 2.02, 3.04
• Behavior Analyst 3.14 Facilitating Continuity of Services, 3.16 Appropriately Transitioning Services,4.01 Compliance with Supervision Requirements, 4.08 Performance Monitoring and Feedback, 4.12 Appropriately Terminating Supervision
• A.R.S. § 32-2091.12(e), (q), (v)

Additional Resources:

• BACB RBT Ethics Code 2.0
• BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts
• BACB Reporting Guidance
• Arizona Behavior Analyst Licensure Statute A.R.S. § 32-2091
• At-Will Employment A.R.S. § 23-1501
• Arizona Proposition 206