Who Must Raise the Topic of Religious Accommodation in the Workplace?


A&F logoI wrote recently about religious accommodation, but the Supreme Court arguments in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., last week keep this issue top of mind. The Abercrombie & Fitch case is one where I have sympathy with both the applicant and the employer.

The issue in this case is whether an employer has any duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to try to accommodate an employee’s or applicant’s religious practices if the employee or applicant doesn’t directly request an accommodation. In this case, a Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, interviewed for employment with Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a hajib. Whether or not she was Muslim did not come up during the interview, but the employer assumed she was Muslim and decided not to hire her, because her appearance did not fit the “look” it wanted for sales employees in its stores.

hijabIt is a shame that this case has reached the Supreme Court. By all accounts, Ms. Elauf has had a successful career since Abercrombie & Fitch rejected her application. Most likely, Abercrombie & Fitch lost a good prospective employee by making a decision without discussing accommodation with this applicant. In fact, Abercrombie & Fitch later changed its policy to permit sales employees to wear hijabs, so the whole lawsuit might have been avoided had the issue been addressed before the retailer rejected Ms. Elauf’s application.

I am sympathetic to the applicant, because I believe that religious practices should be accommodated. As I stated in my February 16 post, this nation was founded to permit a diversity of religious beliefs, and we should give each other a little space to make that happen. The “look” policy, if strictly applied with no flexibility, might not have been the best practice from either a customer service or an employment perspective.

With respect to the specifics of the case, the hiring managers at Abercrombie & Fitch correctly perceived Ms. Elauf’s hijab to be an indication that she was Muslim. Therefore, the Supreme Court could easily rule that the employer should have done more before rejecting the applicant. The company should at least have raised the issue, as the EEOC argues. However, the challenge for the Court might be to do justice to Ms. Elauf without issuing broad rules of law that go beyond the intended scope of Title VII and could make managing a business more difficult.

There are many reasons why the employer’s position is also sympathetic. In my opinion, particularly for customer-facing employees—which retail sales employees are—an employer should be able to set appearance standards. Moreover, placing the burden on the employer to determine whether there might be a religious practice at stake, as the EEOC argued, goes beyond the capability of many hiring managers. How is any particular manager supposed to be aware of all religious practices—for example, whether a particular tattoo is religiously based or simply a style that an applicant likes? It is much more likely that the applicant will recognize when his or her religious practices might be an issue than that the employer representative will.

Moreover, many employers are legitimately concerned about mentioning religion at all during a hiring interview. Whether the applicant is or is not of a particular religion, the employer opens itself up to the possibility of a discrimination claim for “perceiving” the applicant to be of a protected group. Most Human Resources personnel and other management representatives have been carefully trained to avoid bringing up religion unless and until the employee does, and even then to handle the situation gingerly.

Also supporting the employer’s position in this case is that the standard for religious accommodation under Title VII has traditionally been quite low. Unlike under the Americans with Disabilities Act, where “reasonable accommodation” has placed some significant burdens on employers, under Title VII the only accommodations required have been those that do not impose more than a “de minimis” burden on the employer. So, even if Abercrombie & Fitch had raised the issue of Ms. Eleuf’s hijab, the retailer might not have had to change its “look” policy to accommodate her.

Nevertheless, it is quite possible, as the EEOC argued here, for the employer to have policies and procedures that the applicant does not know about—such as Abercrombie & Fitch’s “look” policy. It does not seem fair to make the applicant raise the issue of religion because there might possibly be a problem that the applicant knows nothing about. If employers do not need to discuss religion, why should applicants?

Thus, keeping the focus on the job—as Justices Sotomayor and Alito seemed to suggest during oral argument—might well be a workable solution. The hiring managers’ questions can ask about the job requirements and whether the applicant sees any problem performing them. Then, if religion might be an issue, the applicant can tell the employer what his or her religious beliefs require.

My advice to hiring managers was always to keep the focus on the job requirements.

How have you dealt with religious accommodation issues in the past? How do you feel about the issues raised in the Abercrombie & Fitch case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Making the Tough Calls: It’s What Leaders Do


toughdecisionsWe had a big project underway in our Human Resources Department—combining the company’s vacation and sick pay policies into a paid leave bank. The HR group had recommended this change for several years, but it had taken time to get the company’s leadership on board. This time, it looked like it was a go. We would make the change at the beginning of the next calendar year. It was October, and we were ready to communicate to managers, and then to the employee population at large.

We held one last meeting with the IT folks to confirm that our time reporting systems could handle the transition. They’d been confident in prior conversations. But this time—with the HR manager spearheading the project (one of my direct reports), my boss the Vice-President of HR, and me all present—the IT guys said, “It will take us two man-years and $150,000. Can’t be done in less than six months.”

I knew immediately that however much I wanted to support my project manager who had worked hard to bring the paid leave bank to fruition, the project was dead in the water. We couldn’t proceed without the systems in place to track employees’ time. It was a decision I didn’t want to make, but the only reasonable choice for the company at that time.

My boss and I looked at each other. I couldn’t look at the project manager, who was facing a year’s work going down the toilet. “We have to pull the plug,” I said. “We can’t do it this year.”

Whose fault was it? IT’s for not being honest in earlier meetings? My project manager’s for not pushing IT harder? It didn’t matter, the decision was clear. Ranting about who was at fault was not going to help, though the project manager and I had a couple of private conversations later about the problem.

A recent article on Inc.com, How to Control the Damage When Making Unpopular Choices, by Alix Stuart, for the March 2015 issue of Inc. magazine, reminded me of this situation.

Image from Forbes

Image from Forbes

There are times in every leader’s career when he or she must make hard choices. Do you push for what you want, or settle for what you can have? Do you take a risk or play it safe? Do you pursue Product X or Product Y?

Many times the choices are not as clear as the choice I faced over the paid leave bank. The Inc.com article makes good points about trying to communicate well in the time leading up to the decision. But ultimately, leaders have to make the call and deal with the consequences.

Dealing with the consequences requires listening to the people hurt by the decision, mitigating the harm where you can, and standing firm when you believe your decision was right. I spent many hours listening to my project manager after the decision, helping him plan our next foray into paid leave banks (which was successful). But I never thought we had any good alternative to the decision I made.

When have you had to make a tough decision and face the consequences?

2 Comments

Filed under Human Resources, Leadership, Management

A Kosher Deli, A Modern Bakery, and Religious Accommodation


side-images-deli-platterMany years ago I was planning a party at my home for a large crowd. I planned to serve sandwiches, so I called a local deli that had been recommended to me. I discussed the kinds of meat the deli offered, and ordered several pounds of pastrami and corned beef and turkey.

“What about ham?” I asked.

“No ham. We’re kosher,” the proprietor responded.

I hadn’t realized the deli was kosher, but I could do without ham, and I added another pound of pastrami to my order. “And I’d like a cheese platter also,” I said.

“We don’t serve cheese with meat.” Now the proprietor’s tone was curt.

OK Kosher CertifiedI was embarrassed. I knew that keeping kosher meant keeping meat and milk products separate—”thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” being one of the dietary commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. But I had forgotten. I knew the deli offered both meats and cheeses for sale, but apparently they did not sell them together.

I was a member of the public placing an order with this deli. But it never once occurred to me to insist that I be sold both meat and cheese in violation of the proprietor’s religious beliefs. In fact, I felt I had been insensitive to his desire to operate his business in accordance with his religion. It was my faux pas, not his, I thought, though I did think he could have been a little more gentle in his response to me.

If I did not get indignant at my desire for cheese being refused, why do homosexual couples think that the owner of a bakery who believes gay marriage is not acceptable must sell them a wedding cake?

And why do people wanting birth control medications or devices think that a pharmacist must sell such goods when the pharmacist believes birth control is immoral?

Should I have insisted on getting my cheese at the same place as my meat? I don’t think so. Or canceled my meat order because I couldn’t get the cheese? That was my perogative, but it wasn’t worth bothering. There were plenty of other places to get my cheese.

I recognize that our nation’s history is full of examples of people being refused service because of their race, their gender, their national origin, their religion. I believe that in most of those situations, the business owners were wrong.

But let us also recognize that our nation was founded by people seeking the freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit. Religious freedom is one of our bedrock principles.

In most situations, we should permit business owners to set their own terms for what they will and will not offer for sale and when they will sell certain products. We should accommodate people’s attempts to make their livelihood in a manner that is consistent with their consciences. In a society as pluralistic as ours, there should be room to accommodate our differences.

Why can’t we just give each other some space to live and let live?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Law, Philosophy

Fair Labor Standards Act and the Expanding (or Contracting) Work Week


laptop-260x173I’ve written before about the need to update the Fair Labor Standards Act. A recent article on the Knowledge@Wharton website reminded me of this need again. See Management, If Not 40 Hours, Then What? Defining the Modern Work Week, Jan. 28, 2015.  As the article states, “With the advent of telecommuting, flexible hours, globalization and answering emails after hours and on vacation, the American worker has entered the era of the fuzzy work-home divide.”

The blurring of work and home lives began decades ago for many professionals. As an attorney in the early 1980s I could bill hours from home or on the road, though face time at the office was definitely important. But today, with smartphones in the hands of every worker, even many traditionally hourly occupations can be performed anywhere and anytime. Whether this is a positive or detrimental development depends on how it is managed—both by management and by employees themselves.

There are also differences in what workers want. Some want longer work weeks for more pay. Others want shorter work weeks for more time for other activities. Similarly, managers want more work for the same pay, but they also want productive workers who are engaged in their roles (which requires that the rest of their lives also be running smoothly).

1. Which Direction Are We Headed?

The eight-hour day was one accomplishment of the early 20th century labor movement, protecting workers from terribly long hours in dismal factory conditions. It was also intended to spread work out across more laborers during the Great Depression. The eight-hour day and forty-hour week were certainly not traditional in the agrarian society that predated the Industrial Revolution. There is nothing set in stone about the eight-hour day or forty-hour week, other than that it is mandated for non-exempt employees under the FLSA and similar laws in other nations.

The Wharton article focuses on a number of possible developments in defining the work week of the future, mostly focused on requiring fewer hours in the week. And yet, U.S. workers currently work an average of 46.7 hours per week, and 18% work more than 60 hours.

Will workers continue to increase their time spent working? Will managers permit more flexibility?

With today’s more flexible work and more flexible technology, the fixed eight-hour day may have outlived its usefulness. Yet in which direction will the work week of the future move—toward more hours or fewer? There are strong arguments for both. Whichever direction we take, managers will be challenged to comply with regulations that change much more slowly than the workplace does.

2. How Do We Manage?

imagesTraditional management: One option in managing work time is for companies to forbid any work by hourly employees except during certain hours. This makes compliance with the FLSA easier, but the trade-off is that company policies typically then do not permit employees to perform personal assignments during working hours. Otherwise, productivity suffers.

This option also penalizes employees who want to put in extra time or have flexibility in when and where they do their work. Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps, depending on your perspective), the FLSA is set up to regulate defined work times and to require payment for all time spent working.

Tracking Time: Another option for managing time is to require hourly employees to keep time sheets, where they log on and off the clock to handle personal matters. This is a difficult policy to enforce, and also runs the risk of violating the FLSA’s requirements that non-exempt employees must be paid for all breaks unless the break is long enough for them to leave the premises. So, employees could be permitted a half-hour of personal time in the middle of the day, but not a series of five-minute breaks to handle personal phone calls.

I predict that companies will develop diverging policies on this issue. Some will become more flexible, despite the management challenges. Others will hold to traditional schedules, at least until the FLSA changes significantly.

Congress should debate this issue and develop 21st Century laws for 21st Century workplaces.

What do you think? Should the FLSA permit more flexibility?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

NLRB Permits Use of Employer Email Systems for Union Organizing


nlrb logoThe National Labor Relations Board may be one of the government agencies pursuing the Obama Administration’s progressive agenda most aggressively. I wrote last August about the NLRB considering McDonald’s Corporation and its franchisees to be joint employers, and I wrote in September about the NLRB expanding the scope of “concerted activity” to cover individual employee claims.

On December 10, 2014, the NLRB ruled that employers could not adopt a policy limiting their employees’ use of work email systems for work purposes only. The Board said that work-only email policies limit employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities, because email systems are a good way to discuss working conditions. See Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (2014). According to the Board, email is a “natural gathering place” where workers can discuss the terms and conditions of their employment.

This is a reversal of NLRB policy. In 2007, the Board had ruled that email policies forbidding personal use of employer email systems was acceptable. See Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007). In Register Guard, the NLRB held that employees had no rights under the National Labor Relations Act to use employer email systems. So long as the company applied its work-only policy to all outside activities, and didn’t discriminate against unions, the policy was valid.

But after the Purple Communications decision, the Register Guard ruling is no longer good law. The majority in Purple Communications held that “by focusing too much on employers’ property rights and too little on the importance of email as a means of workplace communication, the Board [in Register Guard] failed to adequately protect employees’ rights under the Act and abdicated its responsibility ‘to adapt the Act to the changing patterns of industrial life.”

The Board in Purple Communications cited the Supreme Court in Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), which said the Board must balance “the undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees” with “the equally undisputed right of employers to maintain discipline in their establishments.” Unfortunately, the NLRB in Purple Communications found that the balance fell with employees’ “core Section 7 right to communicate in the workplace about their terms and conditions of employment.”

The NLRB in Purple Communications did permit employers to place some controls on use of their email systems. First, employers do not have to give all employees email accounts, if not required for their jobs. In addition, employers can prohibit the use of company email systems for the discussion of non-work-related topics on work time, though this may be a hard limitation to police. Furthermore, employers can also regulate email use to maintain productivity and discipline, though enforcement of these regulations sounds like an invitation of unfair labor practices complaints. Although the Board did state that employers could demonstrate “special circumstances” to ban non-work use of email, it will be the rare situation that this Board would uphold as “special” enough.

The Purple Communications decision was, as one might expect, a 3-2 decision, with the Democratic appointees constituting the majority and the two Republican appointees wanting to abide by the earlier Register Guard decision. Board members Miscimarra and Johnson issued dissents arguing that the majority’s ruling was contrary to precedent, improperly burdened employer property rights, and violated the First Amendment by forcing companies to pay for speech that they do not support.

Unfortunately, the NLRB under the Obama Administration is creating new rights in favor of union organizers. Even where an employer has a nondiscriminatory policy, the Democratic majority believes that employees seeking to organize the workplace must be granted special access to employer-owned systems to communicate about possibly protected concerted activities.

Moreover, the Purple Communications decision is likely to be followed by more expansive NLRB rulings—on employees’ use of employer phone and other communications systems and on how far employers can go to read emails on their own system (might it become illegal surveillance?). Employers are required to monitor their email and other communications systems, for example, to be sure all relevant documents are produced during litigation. It is only a matter of time before some union sympathizer complains when his or her emails are produced and files an unfair labor practice complaint because the employer has done what it is legally mandated to do.

Union organizing through electronic communications is here to stay, and employers need to be ready. Unfortunately, the NLRB has just given employees a major victory in permitting them to use the employers’ own systems to organize. Unless the courts are prepared to overrule the Purple Communications ruling, it is a brave new world under the National Labor Relations Act.

For more on this decision, see:

Not Just Your (Company) Email System Anymore! re: NLRB Purple Communications Ruling, by Rufino Gaytán,  December 12, 2014

NLRB’s decision in Purple Communications means employers must take a close look at policies restricting employee email use, by Hogan Lovells, Stanley J. Brown, Christine M. Burke , George W. Ingham and Dianne Milner, December 15 2014

The NLRB Shakes Things Up: Purple Communications and the Board’s New “Ambush” Elections Rule, by Judith Kong, December 19, 2014

Another employer policy gets axed by the NLRB, by Christian Schappel , January 21, 2015

What do you think of the NLRB’s Purple Communications decision?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Will Texas Fair Housing Act Case Limit Use of Disparate Impact Analysis in Employment Discrimination Cases?


fheo175I was surprised to realize I haven’t written about disparate impact analysis on this blog before. “Disparate impact” is the legal theory of discrimination that says that covered entities can be liable for statistically disproportionate results of their policies and practices that have an adverse impact on protected classes, even in the absence of any proof that these entities intended to discriminate. If there is a statistical disparity that adversely impacts some group protected by law, then the burden falls on the entity to prove that there is a legitimate business interest for the policy or practice.

1. Disparate Impact under Title VII

Disparate impact has been a valid theory under Title VII since the Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), in which the Court ruled that an employer must justify any neutral policy that disproportionately affects minorities or women adversely. The Court said that Title VII was intended to rectify the consequences of employment practices, not simply discriminatory motives.

The holding of Griggs was limited somewhat in Ward’s Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), where the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs must identify a specific practice or policy that adversely affects the protected group, that the employer need only produce some evidence of a business justification for the practice, and that the burden of proof always remains with the employee.

So for over forty years now, employers have dealt with disparate impact cases and have needed to justify any policies that have adverse impacts on women, minorities, older workers, or others protected under the various employment discrimination statutes.

2. Texas Dept. Of Housing v. The Inclusive Communities Project: A Case Under the Fair Housing Act

When I learned that the Supreme Court had taken a case involving the Fair Housing Act, I wondered whether it might have an impact on employment discrimination cases. Both Title VII and the Fair Housing Act permit cases to be brought under theories of either intentional discrimination and disparate impact.

More Perspectives on Health Care ReformThe new case, Texas Dept. of Housing v. The Inclusive Communities Project, is the first Fair Housing Act case to reach the Supreme Court under a disparate impact theory. The Fair Housing Act requires that discrimination be “because of” race, rather than the “adversely affect” language of Title VII, which the Supreme Court has held allows disparate impact statistical analysis. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on January 21, 2015.

The basic issue in the case is whether the 1968 Fair Housing Act only prohibit intentional housing bias, or whether it also prohibit policies that have a negative impact on people in protected classes.  Intentional discrimination is far harder to prove than disparate impact, because motives are not always clear.

In the past, the Obama Administration seems to fear the Supreme Court’s likely handling of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act. The government has settled two other recent cases.

For a good history of the case, see Lyle Denniston, Argument preview: That housing bias issue is back, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 20, 2015).

Of course, without a decision in the case, it’s hard to know what to think yet. But the oral arguments were interesting.

The Court’s four liberal justices seemed ready to adopt “disparate impact” without any restrictions. Justice Breyer said during oral argument that disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act “has been the law of the United States uniformly throughout the United States for 35 years.”

Justice Scalia—typically conservative—wondered whether Congress implicitly adopted the disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act when the law was amended in 1988. But he also asked plaintiffs why a statistical disparity should be enough for liability under the Act, if the statutory language requires that housing must be unavailable for a reason related to race. After all, statistical disparities might not be based on race; they merely show a correlation, not causation. And in an earlier employment discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), Justice Scalia has seemed dubious about the constitutionality of the disparate impact theory.

For more on Justice Scalia’s comments, see Amy Howe, Justice Scalia keeps both sides guessing in Fair Housing Act case: In Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 22, 2015).

And as always, Marcia Coyle’s analysis on PBS NewsHour, January 21, 2015, was succinct and clear.

3. What Impact Will the Texas Case Have on Disparate Impact in Employment Cases?

Upon reflection, I think the odds are long that the Texas case will make much difference in employment discrimination cases. First of all, the statutory language is sufficiently different that the Court could well stick with the Griggs v. Duke Power ruling in employment cases. Griggs is a direct precedent in support of disparate impact analysis in employment cases, albeit narrowed by Ward’s Cove Packing.

The second reason for a limited impact is that the Court tends to issues narrow rulings rather than broad, particularly when it is likely to be split philosophically. Even if the Court decides against the appropriateness of disparate impact analysis under the Fair Housing Act, the decision is likely to be a 5-4 ruling (based on the comments of the liberal justices) and is likely to be limited to the Fair Housing Act on its terms.

Third, any employment discrimination cases will have to wend their way through circuit court splits and could take years to reach the Supreme Court. Still, Justice Scalia’s prior invitation is likely to encourage defense counsel in employment cases to start down that path.

What do you think the role of disparate impact analysis should be in employment discrimination cases?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Law, Politics

Favorite Firing: When Employees Behave Badly . . . And Mental Illness Is Suspected


Photo by David Castillo Dominici. Published on 08 September 2014 Stock Photo - Image ID: 100286443. Freedigitalphotos.net

Photo by David Castillo Dominici. Published on 08 September 2014
Stock Photo – Image ID: 100286443. Freedigitalphotos.net

On a handful of occasions during my career, I had to deal with employees who were mentally ill. Several employees were depressed, and these situations could generally be worked through over time. But one individual had agoraphobia and wouldn’t leave his house, though his job required him to call on customers. Two others had schizophrenia, and their communications were difficult to understand and their workplace behaviors were bizarre. These were the more difficult situations. This month, I’m writing my “Favorite Firing” on one particular case of schizophrenia.

The Facts: “Sabrina” (not her real name) worked in an office environment, in a room where about ten employees worked. She had worked for the company for around twenty years. For most of her employment, her performance was adequate, though her behavior toward coworkers tended to be a little quirky. She didn’t have any friends among her colleagues, but they all got their jobs done.

As a Human Resources director, I became aware of Sabrina’s situation when her managers began complaining that she was accusing coworkers and managers of following her around. The managers denied that anyone was doing anything inappropriate toward Sabrina. Despite several conversations, Sabrina continued to accuse people of following her.

Then she began following others. To the rest room. To other departments. Her coworkers got freaked out. Sabrina was told not to follow anyone. She said she had to, because they were spying on her.

Sabrina was placed on a leave of absence and told to see her physician about her behavior. This was a risky move on the employer’s part, but workplace counseling was not getting through to Sabrina. While she was on leave, Sabrina sent us a lengthy, rambling diatribe of all the evil things that had been done to her by managers and coworkers. It was five pages of incomplete and run-on sentences, most of which made no sense. The company attempted to decipher her claims and investigate, but Sabrina’s allegations could not be substantiated.

Sabrina’s physician reported that she should be able to do her job, so she was returned to the workplace after a few weeks. The environment in the department did not improve, with both Sabrina and her coworkers reporting misdeeds. Everyone denied everything. The situation continued for several months.

Things came to a head when one of Sabrina’s managers complained that when she turned to confront Sabrina about following her down the hall, Sabrina stuck out her forefingers like guns and said “Gotcha.” It’s hard to tell what Sabrina meant by this, but the manager took Sabrina’s action as a threat of violence and was seriously shaken.

Sabrina was put on another leave, and was told she could not return without more information from her doctor about why she was behaving so oddly and assurances that her behavior would change. We hoped this additional leave would get her to seek medical help and perhaps begin medication that might improve her behavior. Again, a risky move on the part of the employer, but morale and productivity in the department were suffering and we could not continue as we had for so long.

We received no information back from Sabrina or her doctor, despite issuing deadlines in writing to Sabrina. After Sabrina’s FMLA leave rights expired, she was terminated, because we had no reason to think the situation would ever improve.

The Moral: We were fortunate that this case did not result in litigation. While the managers and I strongly suspected that Sabrina had schizophrenia, we had no verification. It would not have really mattered whether we ever got a diagnosis or not; our suspicions were probably enough to result in a finding under the Americans with Disabilities Act that Sabrina was protected because she was “regarded” as having a mental disability. We had to assume the ADA would apply to protect her.

Under the ADA, employers must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Sabrina had performed her essential job functions for many years. In her last couple of years of employment, her performance suffered, but we would have had to prove that she no longer met the essential job functions. We had some documentation of poor performance, but much of the problem was behavioral, rather than low productivity.

Moreover, we would have had to prove that we attempted reasonable accommodation to get her to do her essential job functions. Her job primarily involved processing paper. She might have been able to do that. But communications with coworkers in her own and other departments were also critical, and her workplace relationships were broken by her odd behavior. We had not suggested any accommodations to Sabrina, because we had no diagnosis and no understanding of what might help her. On the other hand, she had not suggested any accommodations to us either—she denied she had any problems, and blamed everything on her managers and coworkers.

The medical leaves we put her on were the only way we felt we could get Sabrina to take the situation seriously. Ultimately, even the leaves did not get her to provide us with any information about accommodations. What if her doctor had told us that Sabrina could work from home, or could work in an isolated environment? Could we have accommodated these proposals? We might have at least had to try.

No one wanted to fire Sabrina, but the company also did not want to put up with the disruptive behavior in her department. We decided it was the best course of action. But I’ve always wondered what happened to Sabrina.

When have you confronted mental illness in the workplace? How did you handle it?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace