Sat 17 Jan, 2009 07:59 am
Lets say a girl working for a huge retail corporation is diagnosed with an anger disorder. She sometimes goes through phases when she's pleasant to be around. However, the dark phase rolled around a few months into her job and she started throwing stuff, punching walls, slamming doors, and starting heated arguement with coworkers over insignificant issues, even in front of customers, one of which reported her to her assistant mgr. Her assistant mgr. terminated her for workplace violence and called it gross misconduct, which merits termination w/o warning. He refuses to tolerate unsafe work behavior on her part. However, she gets most to all her work done before she leaves each night, sometimes more than her even tempered coworkers. Isn't it reason enough to retain her? Shouldn't ADA protect her from canning since she has a diagnosis? As for gross misconduct, she never physically assaulted anyone. Could the company legally call her violent outburst gross misconduct?
I suspect a customer of the retail company would be repulsed by the behavior...and would stop shopping in the place if the employee were not removed...so my vote would be:
Get rid of her.
She could sue under the act...but I doubt she would prevail.
And if she did...it would be further evidence that the law is a ass!
enough about the anger
we get it all ready
this question looks like you're trying to find some way around the problem without having to address the problem itself, address the problem, then worry about what protections you're allowed
I believe an employer has the duty to create a safe work environment for all of their workers.
Were you diagnosed with IED? Were you receiving treatment? Were you following the treatment plan?
Even if you were, your employee has the right to fire you if you act violently against other employees.
According to the ADA:
The ADA has a two-part definition of "individual with a disability." First, the person must have a physical or mental impairment. This can include "emotional or mental illness." Second, the impairment must result in a substantial limitation in one or more major life activities such as thinking, concentrating, learning, working or caring for oneself. Therefore, not everyone with a DSM-IV disorder will be covered by the ADA, since some disorders are short-term in nature or result in only minor limitations in functioning. It is also possible that a person could establish an emotional or mental disability without a DSM diagnosis, as long as the condition meets the requirements of the ADA.
People with mental disabilities can not be excluded based on general, stereotypical assumptions about dangerousness. Any threat must be based on sound medical judgment and objective evidence of factors such as the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that harm will occur, and the imminence of the harm. Of course a person with a disability must be able to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodations in order to be covered by the ADA.
Wow...you folks (Hi Phoenix) are all sure the writer is the person being talked about in the writing.
I didn't get that at all!
DD22...are you the subject of the report here????
dd22 started a thread about getting fired from a job for anger issues
Does ADA require employers to accomodate employees who has anger issues?
Is it fair of them to fire me?
the stigma of having an anger problem
these are the three topics he/she has started
Mystery no longer a mystery.
actually, this more severe case happened to a girl on Yahoo Answers. Her question about seeking ADA protection was about to expire (w/ still no answers)and I was trying to get answers for her. Both she and I may've worked at Wal-Mart, but I didn't throw stuff or slam doors. Also, I don't have the diagnosis of an anger disorder (although I'm seeking one) but she has.
Well you could try to find a lawyer looking to make a big name for herself/himself and see if you could talk him into suing your former employer under the act.
Do not think that any sane jury would end up giving you a dime but it would be an interesting case
The ADA does not require employers to retain a potentially violent employee, even if the behavior is precipitated by a mental illness. As one court held, "Such a requirement would place the employer on a razor's-edge " in jeopardy of violating the Act if it fired such an employee, yet in jeopardy of being deemed negligent if it retained him and he hurt someone."
As I said, I don't have any diagnosis to qualify under the ADA. Yes, I was canned for anger ourburst, but I can't make my case w/o a diagnosis. Even if I did have one, I don't want to bc even if I won, other employers would be reluctant to hire me. The girl I was referring to in this post is another girl from Yahoo Answers who HAS been diagnosed w/ an anger disorder. Also, she had ourburst on a regular basis during her last 2 weeks at her New York Wal-Mart. I only exploded twice during my last week at my Wal-Mart in MO. I don't even know this girl in person.
Not matter who we are talking about the courts up to the SC had been taking a very hard nose attitude towards whom and under what conditions the ADA can be apply.
In fact the limits had upset congress to the point they had even rewritten the law to nullify some of the courts rulings.
Still anyone who act out to the degree that a reasonable person could consider him or her a threat is never likely to be protected under this act, in my non-lawyer opinion.
I guess this prolly means getting an IED (intermittent explosive disorder) diagnosis wouldn't help my case either. But again, I'm not about to waste my time with this legal ****.