ADA Issue - No Work for 6 weeks!

[ooogha]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

Try posting again or editing this post. The "Preview" function has a tendency to eat posts.

I'm curious to know what the ADA has to do with your being out of work for 6 weeks?

 

[eerelations]

Here is my response to OP's previous thread attempt on Saturday:

"Lesson: don't use the preview button when you re-type your post.

That said, if your question is this:

"Can my employer legally fire me for threatening to commit suicide?"

then no need to re-type your post as the answer is "Yes.""

And here is my answer to OP's latest thread attempt:

If you have specifically (and hopefully in writing) said to your employer that you have mental disabilities and would like ADA accommodation, then your employer may or may not legally suspend you from work for six weeks. We would need more information to determine that.

If however all you've done is threaten to commit suicide while in the workplace, then yes, it's perfectly legal for your employer to suspend you from work for six weeks.

 

[commentator]

If this six week suspension is without pay, file for unemployment benefits immediately and explain the situation to them, and let them make a decision related to whether or not you can receive unemployment benefits while you are off on this six weeks suspension. It will depend on several factors, but it is certainly a good idea to file a claim any time you are off work through no fault of your own for any length of time.

 

[cbg]

I'd want to know a whole lot more about the situation before I said conclusively that the employee could be fired for a suicide threat. The devil is in the details.

As for the information we have in the subject title, well, the same applies. Without knowing what's going on or what the question is, I can't express an informed opinion.

 

[eerelations]

Yes, more details are required. What I meant was, if all the details consist of just the OP saying "I'm gonna kill myself!" at work (and really, that's about all we know), he can be legally fired for that.

 

[ooogha]

I'm the OP - Here are more details

Hello everyone - thanks for reading my original title and for the feedback. I will try this again:

My husband works for a BIG company. He had been there for over a year when he had a medical episode at work - he passed out and the ambulance came. He ended up in the hospital for two days and all sorts of test were run, etc. It was determined that something from his blood work was really low (can't remember what). Anyhow, turns out he had to change his blood pressure pills. He was out five days and returned to work. He finally got on some pills that seemed to work; however, the pill the doctor prescribed for anxiety (Clonazepam) made him kind of weird. One day he was at work he told one of his supervisors that he was having "weird" thoughts and that he was going to kill himself. Then he proceeded to the parking lot toward his car. A while later the cops were there and he was transported to the hospital to the psych ward. He ended up being transferred to the state mental hospital where he had to wait to be seen. After finally being seen by a psychiatrist, he was released with a note stating he could return to work with no restrictions. The doc said that pill can do some crazy stuff to people and that it caused the psychosis that day. Well, he gave his RTW notice to work; however, they said he couldn't come back and that they would have to deal with Corporate and get back to him. So he waited.... and waited. About two and a half weeks later he went for a follow up visit as the doc had suggested. At this appt. a different doc gave him a note saying that he was only taking a Benadryl type medication that from that visit there was no reason to believe he couldn't return to work. He faxed this note to HR and then waited some more. He's been left hanging thinking he would go back to work anytime; hence, he did not file for unemployment right away. He since has applied for it and it is pending. Fast forward to a week ago - the manager told him they need something in writing from the doc that says the pills are what caused his threats of suicide that day. So he went back and someone actually called the company for him and spoke to them. I believe they faxed something too, but I'm not sure. Why he didn't ask is beyond me!

It has been so frustrating cuz all this happened shortly before he was to be eligible for benefits and we have probably at least $50k in bills from it all. I just don't understand how why, after two notes saying he can work, they aren't allowing him to work. If the doctor specifies that the pill caused this, doesn't that protect him under the ADA??? This just doesn't seem right at all. And I think he should have been paid while on this "leave" as well. Any thoughts, advice, opinions would be appreciated. I am just beyond tired of it all and we can barely make ends meet on my income.

Thanks everyone!!!

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

A note saying he is released to work and a note saying he is not going to engage in workplace violence after making a threat are 2 different things.

 

[Ladyback1]

. I just don't understand how why, after two notes saying he can work, they aren't allowing him to work. If the doctor specifies that the pill caused this, doesn't that protect him under the ADA??? This just doesn't seem right at all. And I think he should have been paid while on this "leave" as well. Any thoughts, advice, opinions would be appreciated. I am just beyond tired of it all and we can barely make ends meet on my income.

Thanks everyone!!!

ummm....no employer is going to allow an employee back to work if there is a possibility of violence and/or death.
one incident does not qualify for ADA. What specific class (disability) does your husband qualify for?
And why should he be paid for his leave? It wasn't work related (by any stretch of the imagination)
An employee does have a duty and obligation to follow up on when the employer will put them back on the schedule.
Why didn't he contact the employer more frequently than every couple of weeks?

 

[ooogha]

ummm....no employer is going to allow an employee back to work if there is a possibility of violence and/or death.
one incident does not qualify for ADA. What specific class (disability) does your husband qualify for?
And why should he be paid for his leave? It wasn't work related (by any stretch of the imagination)
An employee does have a duty and obligation to follow up on when the employer will put them back on the schedule.
Why didn't he contact the employer more frequently than every couple of weeks?

If he is terminated for this, it seems that he could file an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. He could argue that his doctor certified that he was able to work and yet his workplace “perceived him as disabled,” which would require his work to try to accommodate his alleged mental illness. I don't think I'm way off base here, but then again, I'm surely no expert.

Also, he called every week or so to check in and was told they don't know yet - it's outta their hands, etc. The latest is that the Manager is out sick. He's looking for a new job which is good because I know if he does go back, they will find any sort of reason to terminate him.

Thanks again everyone....

 

[cbg]

Before he can file a lawsuit claiming an ADA violation, he would need a right to sue letter from the EEOC, and to get that he needs to show that the ADA even applies. Not all medical conditions fall under the ADA. What permanent or long-term medical condition does he have that limits a major life activity? If the answer is none, then the ADA does not apply in the first place.

 

[eerelations]

OP's details sound really familiar, especially the telling the supervisor about driving around feeling suicidal part + OP is the spouse part...OP have you posted this issue here under a different username or elsewhere under any username?

 

[commentator]

Quote: "He's been left hanging thinking he would go back to work anytime; hence, he did not file for unemployment right away "

This assumption on your husband's part was by no means his employer's fault. Their refusing to call a person to return to work when he has been released by his doctor to return will qualify him for unemployment benefits (as soon as he decides to file) till he finds another job. How fast he was able to get released by his doctor and be approved for benefits has nothing to do with the company and the relative fairness or unfairness of their treatment of him. He has been let go through no fault of his own due to a health situation. He is now released to return to work. He is able and available for work. His employer has declined to put him back to work.

The situation extremely common, and very likely does not violate his rights under the ADA, and therefore there is no potential for a lawsuit if I'm correctly understanding the situation. They've just elected not to let him come back to work, by their decision, in an "at will" state. They could say they have no more work for him. That's quite permissible.

 

[ooogha]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I appreciate them. I have done some research myself and this isn't over. If they do not take him back, I will proceed with the EEOC for the Right to Sue Letter; otherwise, we'll just chalk it up to experience.

 

[cbg]

You'll get nowhere, and I'll tell you why.

You have not proven that the ADA even applies. Before the employer has any obligation to him under the ADA, he has to have self-identified as disabled and requested accommodation. The employer is NOT required to assume accommodation is needed - in fact, it can be considered illegal discrimination to assume it is needed when not requested.

So unless I somehow missed the part where he went to his employer, told them he was disabled and needed to invoke his ADA rights, the ADA (and thus the EEOC) is not a factor here.

And that is not even mentioning the fact that not every medical condition is covered under the ADA, and what little you have described does not appear to meet the definition of an ADA protected condition.