Broken Elbow - Employer asked friend to resign? Can they?

[brandobean]

Washington State.

I have a friend working as a bartender who just broke his elbow and can't perform his job duties for a period of time. He is running into two complications as a result of this injury:

1) Job #1, for which he works 25hrs a week part time and has for 6mo is asking him to not work until his arm is healed. He can't perform the primary duties requested of him (muddling drinks etc.). I do not know if he has asked them to (or informed them that they MUST) provide "reasonable accommodation" to him, maybe by letting him perform alternate serving duties. They are not intending to pay him "sick leave" coverage.

2) Job #2, he just got last week but hadn't officially started yet. When he informed them of his injury, they pressured him to resign stating "you can't do the job we hired you fire, you should quit"...and under duress, he agreed.

My understanding from Washington state law is BOTH of the above treatments are legally not ok. For #1, I believe the business is required to find him alternate duties and continue to pay him. If they can't find him alternate duties (reasonable accommodation) then they can let him go? Surely that's worse than saying "don't work for a while, without pay, and we'll take you back when you heal"

For Job #2, I believe they couldn't force him to resign could they?

Also is he entitled to any benefits? Fortunately, he still technically has one of the two jobs so unemplyment comp isn't an issue here - especially since he technically quit job #2, albeit wrongfully?
Answers, help, or some folks we could contact for advice would be great!

 

[Silverplum]

Washington State.

I have a friend working as a bartender who just broke his elbow and can't perform his job duties for a period of time. He is running into two complications as a result of this injury:

1) Job #1, for which he works 25hrs a week part time and has for 6mo is asking him to not work until his arm is healed. He can't perform the primary duties requested of him (muddling drinks etc.). I do not know if he has asked them to (or informed them that they MUST) provide "reasonable accommodation" to him, maybe by letting him perform alternate serving duties. They are not intending to pay him "sick leave" coverage.

2) Job #2, he just got last week but hadn't officially started yet. When he informed them of his injury, they pressured him to resign stating "you can't do the job we hired you fire, you should quit"...and under duress, he agreed.

My understanding from Washington state law is BOTH of the above treatments are legally not ok. For #1, I believe the business is required to find him alternate duties and continue to pay him. If they can't find him alternate duties (reasonable accommodation) then they can let him go? Surely that's worse than saying "don't work for a while, without pay, and we'll take you back when you heal"

For Job #2, I believe they couldn't force him to resign could they?

Also is he entitled to any benefits? Fortunately, he still technically has one of the two jobs so unemplyment comp isn't an issue here - especially since he technically quit job #2, albeit wrongfully?
Answers, help, or some folks we could contact for advice would be great!

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/LeaveBenefits/VacaySick/default.asp

Q. Does an employer have to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave?

A. An employer is not required to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave.

Paid leave for holidays, vacation, sickness or bereavement following the death of a close family member are considered “benefits” that may be paid by the business under a policy, written agreement, personal contract, oral agreement, collective bargaining agreement or other form of agreement. There are no state laws requiring that such benefits be given.

If the business agrees to give these benefits and then does not do so, workers may sue the business in a private legal suit in small claims court or through a private attorney. L&I does not enforce these agreements.

Q. When can a worker take time off for a serious illness?
A. The federal Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) permits workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. To qualify, the worker must have worked at least 12 months for the employer for a total of at least 1,250 hours and the employer must have 50 or more employees.

This unpaid leave can be used to:
Care for a newborn, newly adopted or foster child,
Recover from the employee's own serious illness, or
Care for a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition.
An employer may deny an employee the use of their paid sick leave while caring for a sick family member under this law.

 

[swalsh411]

You're wrong on both counts.

If you're thinking of the ADA "reasonable accommodation" requirement, that only pertains to disabilities. A temporary broken bone is not a disability in terms of ADA protection.

For the job that hasn't hired him yet, they are simply rescinding the offer because he can't do the job.

 

[cbg]

And since he would not yet qualify for FMLA in either job, they had no legal obligation to provide protected medical leave - or medical leave at all.

The ADA, and it's requirement for reasonable accommodations, first does not apply to temporary conditions and second does not require that they eliminate essential functions of his position even if it did.

 

[Ladyback1]

Washington State.

I have a friend working as a bartender who just broke his elbow and can't perform his job duties for a period of time. He is running into two complications as a result of this injury:

1) Job #1, for which he works 25hrs a week part time and has for 6mo is asking him to not work until his arm is healed. He can't perform the primary duties requested of him (muddling drinks etc.). I do not know if he has asked them to (or informed them that they MUST) provide "reasonable accommodation" to him, maybe by letting him perform alternate serving duties. They are not intending to pay him "sick leave" coverage.

2) Job #2, he just got last week but hadn't officially started yet. When he informed them of his injury, they pressured him to resign stating "you can't do the job we hired you fire, you should quit"...and under duress, he agreed.

My understanding from Washington state law is BOTH of the above treatments are legally not ok. For #1, I believe the business is required to find him alternate duties and continue to pay him. If they can't find him alternate duties (reasonable accommodation) then they can let him go? Surely that's worse than saying "don't work for a while, without pay, and we'll take you back when you heal"

For Job #2, I believe they couldn't force him to resign could they?

Also is he entitled to any benefits? Fortunately, he still technically has one of the two jobs so unemplyment comp isn't an issue here - especially since he technically quit job #2, albeit wrongfully?
Answers, help, or some folks we could contact for advice would be great!

How did he break his elbow?