Mindy is a nationally recognized authority in EEO laws and is a contributing editor to the HR Specialist: Employment Law
monthly newsletter. She is highly regarded for her workplace compliance
training that “clicks and sticks,” because it is practical and
memorable. She is also the coauthor of the American Bar Association’s
bestseller and authority on civil rights training, “Case Dismissed! Taking Your Harassment Prevention Training to Trial."
The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) has recognized Mindy as one of its Top Ten Speakers nationally. She has trained extensively in all industries at all levels of the
workforce—from boardroom executives to managers and supervisors and to
hourly employees in union and non-union environments.
|
said this on 20 Nov 2008 6:16:39 PM EST
This case points up why the ADA is such a poor law. Why has business become the caretaker of its workers? Employees are individuals who should make their own decisions and take care of themselves. They have a contract with their employer to perform certain tasks and receive an agreed upon compensation package. Where is this woman's family and friends? Is everyone in her circle of influence also depressed so no one recognized the symptoms and suggested she may want to see a doctor? Why is it up to her employer (who rightfully knows far less about her personal life than those in her life) to watch out for her? Where is personal responsibility?
|
|
said this on 20 Nov 2008 7:01:32 PM EST
Not everyone HAS family and friends, and even when they do, the F/F may not have the awareness to 'see' or address depression or other mental illnesses. Depression is often difficult for even trained professionals to diagnose. Employers DO have an obligtion to their employees. The concept of "personal responsibility" may not be in play when an employee is experiencing mental illness. The 'tone' of your response is very harsh. I'm glad you're not MY employer.
|
|
said this on 21 Nov 2008 7:59:28 AM EST
The same people who expect their bosses to take care of them are the people who except schools to raise their children. If someone quits, it means they don't want to work there (for whatever reason). As an employer who has to health of the entire organization to consider, how can you believe that a person who resigned, then reneged, is going to be even remotely dedicated to his/her job? Doesn't that employer owe something to the other employees of the company to make sure the company as a whole is functioning well? Or is it better to save the one employee who refuses to take personal repsonsibility and potentially sacrifice the entire operation? What about those other employees who are doing their job? In my opinion, the company owes them just as much, if not more, than the individual in question.
Also, you would do well to remember that most employers are not licensed mental health care professionals and would be reckless in trying to counsel a person experiencing issues. |
|
said this on 21 Nov 2008 8:05:33 AM EST
Kristine - you are out of touch in attacking Frances! The employer has certain responsibilities to employees, dealing with their job itself, not with personal issues. I understand that some employees may need special accomodations, but employers are just that - employers, not medical care providers! Depression is diagnosed by a doctor, not an employer. Once the doctor lets the individual know what restrictions, etc. if any would apply to their employment, the individual brings the matter to the attention of the employer. Don't forget, it's illegal for employers to "assume" an employee has a medical condition such as depression...employers are not permitted to treat (depressed or) any employee differently because they perceive that there is a problem. Employees bear the responsibility to bring their medical situation to the attention of the employer - it's no the employer's responsibility to "pry" into the employee's personal medical conditions.
|
|
said this on 21 Nov 2008 1:27:54 PM EST
Nancy, it never ceases to amaze me that management only sees what it wants to. If you read the article, it said she had already gone out on FMLA, which means the employer knew of her condition. Why is it an employee is expected to follow all the rules management sets yet management does not want to follow rules set by Government. Remember, with out employees actually performing the work, there would be no business. In most cases if the employer treats his/her employee’s right, employees will reciprocate. Big business has the advantage of a human recourses dept to adhere to the LAWS. Small businesses must take the time to follow the same guidelines or risk being sued for nothing more than stupidity
|
|
said this on 21 Nov 2008 9:03:18 AM EST
This court decision obviously places a very large burden on employers. It is not realistic to believe every manager in an organization could or should be able to recognize and diagnose depression or any other medical condition. As others have stated above, employers are being asked to read employees minds and intentions, and at the same time warned that it is inappropriate to do that. I'm pro-employee and think employers should do their best to accomodate employees. But this case going to trial crosses the line.
|

|
|