Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Business Management Daily – “OK to discipline disabled worker for rule-breaking” – March 5th, 2014:

Don’t worry that you can’t discipline disabled workers—if you can show that you punish all em­­ployees equally for breaking the same rule. An employee’s disability is irrelevant as long as you don’t cut slack for other employees while punishing the disabled worker.

Recent case: William, who has bi­­polar disorder and suffers occasional depressive episodes, was hired as a corrections officer at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Dela­­ware County, a prison housing dangerous inmates.

When William ended a romantic relationship, he became depressed. He sat teary-eyed in his car, gained weight and generally seemed miserable. William then began taking vacation and other leave to cope, until he finally took big chunks of leave as a reasonable accommodation.

When William returned, he re­­quested and was placed in a light-duty position. Eventually, he returned to his former job. That’s when he left the door to a cellblock control room un­­locked and had to restrain an in­­mate who tried to gain access. William was fired for making a serious safety mistake.

He sued, alleging that he had been punished for being disabled and taking time off. He added that he had heard co-workers and even a supervisor call him “crazy” and “psycho.”

The prison countered that it had provided William with every accommodation he requested, including time off when he wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave. It also pointed out that William was fired for an extremely serious safety violation that could have resulted in a prisoner commandeering control of the cellblock locks. Plus, none of the individuals who supposedly called William names had been involved in his discipline.

The court dismissed William’s lawsuit. It reasoned that the prison had accommodated William every time he requested help. It had fired him for something entirely unrelated to his disability or leave requests. (Dove v. Community Education Centers, et al., No. 12-4384, ED PA, 2013)

No comments:

Post a Comment