Employment Background Check Guidelines: Complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, conducting credit background checks and running a criminal check to avoid negligent-hiring lawsuits.

When does 'I quit' mean 'Help, I’m disabled'?

At a minimum, employees today are anxious about losing their jobs. On the extreme, they may be experiencing full-blown clinical depressions. If you know an employee is suffering from depression, don’t be so quick to accept his or her hasty resignation, a new court ruling shows. Instead, you may need to identify this person as “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, therefore, engage in an “interactive process” to find a work accommodation … 

CASE IN POINT: Marcy Ann Smith, an Iowa state employee, went out on FMLA leave after being diagnosed with depression. A month before she planned to return to work, she experienced a setback due to a family crisis.

Soon after, Smith showed up at work and resigned. But a few days later, she asked to withdraw her resignation. Her employer refused. It said she could apply for other state jobs. All of her other applications were denied.

Smith sued under two federal laws—the ADA and the FMLA. She contended that (after her resignation) she was an “applicant” within the scope of the ADA and was being discriminated against because the employer knew she suffered from depression. She also claimed that the company’s refusal to accept her resignation reversal was retaliation for her taking FMLA leave. 

Note: The ADA says that when employers are “on notice” that an employee has a disability, they must engage in an interactive process with the worker to determine possible reasonable job accommodations to the disability. (New ADA rules take effect on Jan. 1 that define “disability” more broadly than ever and bring more employees under the “disabled” tent.)

The employer argued that Smith never officially said her quick resignation was related to her disability. But Smith’s lawyers argued that it was the employer’s job to make that connection. Who was right? (Smith v. Iowa, Iowa Ct. App., No. 8-460/07-1689, 10/29/08

What happened next and what lessons can be learned?

The court sided with Smith and sent both the ADA and FMLA claims to a jury trial. It said that even if Smith did not make an explicit request for an accommodation, “Employers must meet employees halfway. And if it appears that (employees) do not know how to ask for an accommodation, employers should do what they can to help.”

The court said the “failure of an employer to engage in the interactive process of determining reasonable accommodations can be viewed as prima facie evidence of acting in bad faith.” 

It also said that Smith’s claim of retaliation under the FMLA was valid because there was no reasonable explanation for not reinstating her upon her request. Smith noted that the department knew of her clinical depression. As such, the judge admonished that “the department had a duty to determine if her resignation was attributable to her depression, or if she had other valid reasons for leaving.”

3 Lessons Learned …Without Going to Court

1. Don’t take every action at face value. Remember, when employees have mental disorders they are “not in their right minds,” and therefore, not necessarily able to make right decisions. Hence, they may resign and retract. Don’t take such actions at face value when the face behind it is depressed. Consider that these may be ADA triggers, which obligate employers to engage in the interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations.

2. Get ready for an ADA explosion. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 will require employers to construe disabilities more broadly than in the past.  Employers should be proactive by updating their ADA policies and procedures and training managers and supervisors on how to properly respond and who to contact for centralized compliance.

3. Establish an interactive processes work script. Employers need to establish an interactive process. Consider an effective work script like, “Thank you for letting me know. Let’s work together to understand the options.” Then make sure you get back in touch with the employee with a solution. And never, ever, blow off and employee with ADA rights by ignoring their requests or failing to identify ADA triggers.


Employment Background Check Guidelines: Complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, conducting credit background checks and running a criminal check to avoid negligent-hiring lawsuits.


6 Responses to "When does 'I quit' mean 'Help, I’m disabled'?"

 
Frances Ruby
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?

 
Kristine
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.

 
Erika
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.

 
Nancy
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.

 
Bill DeGatis
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

 
Randy
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.




Leave a reply:
Your Name *: Email (private): Website:
Please copy the characters from the image below into the text field below. Doing this helps us prevent automated submissions.
Security Code: img