| Posted By |
Message |
racheK
Hudson's Momma
Member since 10/10 2853 total posts
Name:
Rachel
|
Restrictions at work? HR question
Scenario:
A employee works in the consulting field and there is really no ability to work part-time at this job (this is understood when you join the firm, hours are long). Client work is usually 40+ hours per week and this employee can now only put in 10-15 hours a week at the office due to a health issue (and they can't work the rest of the time from home). The employee most likely won't be selected for client work and would sit idle, costing the company money. There is an abundance of client work but with the employee's required part-time schedule, the employee just isn't selected for any of these client jobs.
Depending on the industry/type of work, is it legal for the consulting company to say there is no way to accommodate the employee's request for modified hours, especially with no specific end date in sight for the restrictions?
|
Posted 7/30/13 6:59 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
WannaBeAMom11
LIF Adult
Member since 1/11 7391 total posts
Name:
Name
|
Restrictions at work? HR question
I believe so because its not discrimination because the person is unable to perform the job requirements but I would check with an employment lawyer to make sure.
|
| Posted 7/30/13 7:45 PM |
| |
|
beachmama
LIF Adolescent
Member since 8/12 599 total posts
Name:
T
|
Restrictions at work? HR question
Yes it is legal if there is no manner in which she can be reasonably accommodated. This is a tough burden for an employer to meet, but doable. I am an employment lawyer.
|
| Posted 7/30/13 8:34 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Companies can find any reason to let a person go if they want to.
|
| Posted 7/30/13 8:40 PM |
| |
|
gdubs
This baby is awesome!
Member since 11/10 2467 total posts
Name:
Gina
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) employers are only required to make "reasonable accommodations" for employees who request them. If the request could negatively impact the business then they are not obligated to make the accommodation. If this person can't do client work because it wouldn't be completed in the hours they are available that could be considered detrimental to the business.
If this is something that would qualify them for FMLA, they employee could request the 12 weeks, and although it may be unpaid that may give them the time they need to be able to come back full time and have their job held for them in the mean time.
|
| Posted 7/30/13 9:09 PM |
| |
|
racheK
Hudson's Momma
Member since 10/10 2853 total posts
Name:
Rachel
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Thanks all!
This person feels discriminated against because they want to come back to work but has asked the company to work with a very strict graduated return to work plan which is really not feasible.
|
| Posted 7/31/13 10:40 AM |
| |
|
Cacarina
Two girls!
Member since 12/09 2971 total posts
Name:
Cari
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
This person should go on disability if they are unable to work their required 40 hours a week.
|
| Posted 7/31/13 10:41 AM |
| |
|
racheK
Hudson's Momma
Member since 10/10 2853 total posts
Name:
Rachel
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Posted by Cacarina
This person should go on disability if they are unable to work their required 40 hours a week.
They've been on disability since November and now are hoping to come back to work.
|
| Posted 7/31/13 11:51 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Sometimes it is what it is though, and it's not "discrimination".
I feel like people use that word too freely.
I also know people who have gone out on disability who sucked as employees prior, yet don't see that in themselves.
As an aside, I know if I were to get hurt or sick, or even decide to have another baby, and be out for a prolonged period, I would be easily replaceable because it's only me there to do my job. I would also not be able to request a different schedule because the hours are what they are through the hospital system.
Maybe they would consider a per diem to cover, but maybe not.......
JM experience/opinion.
Message edited 7/31/2013 6:32:36 PM.
|
| Posted 7/31/13 6:27 PM |
| |
|
Karen
Just chillin'!!
Member since 1/06 9690 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
I don't know - I find it hard to believe that not a single client assignment is feasible in 10-15 hours a week? I am a CPA and prior to having kids I did the 40+ hour work week, but now I am back and do 15-20 hours during non-busy season.
I don't know the legal ramification, but it sounds like there is more of a perception issue about this employees ability to do the work that the actual work itself? The employee can't "share" client work with another employee?
|
| Posted 7/31/13 8:27 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Restrictions at work? HR question
Posted by Karen
I don't know - I find it hard to believe that not a single client assignment is feasible in 10-15 hours a week? I am a CPA and prior to having kids I did the 40+ hour work week, but now I am back and do 15-20 hours during non-busy season.
I don't know the legal ramification, but it sounds like there is more of a perception issue about this employees ability to do the work that the actual work itself? The employee can't "share" client work with another employee?
These were my thoughts exactly.
As far as the law - The "reasonable accommodation" language in the ADA is subject to interpretation and the case law varies. You really have to know more about the specific facts, and then look at the case law in the relevant jurisdiction to see how the courts there apply the law to the facts. I actually have a published article on the ADA from back in my law school days, and it's very interesting to see how courts apply the law to various scenarios (back when this was something I was more well-versed in, there were very few bright line rules as to what had to be done in what scenarios). So an employer really does need to be careful of how they proceed. I think it's far wiser to at least TRY to accommodate the employee in some way (and document everything) before saying that no reasonable accommodation is possible.
But I do know that an accommodation doesn't have to be convenient to the employer (or be cost-free) in order to be "reasonable."
I think if the client workload is so great, it seems reasonable that someone working full-time could work in conjunction with the ill employee trying to be phased back in with reduced hours to give some assignments that could be handled from the desk (or from home), freeing up that full-time employee to do other things. If the firm is very busy and there is more than enough work to go around, it seems like someone working reduced hours would be a help, no matter what. And in the age of technology with computers, conference calls, etc., it seems hard to believe there are NO aspects of the client work that could be handled by this person, even if they are working from home a lot.
When I used to practice law at a big firm, it was all client work, and often involved travel and going to clients' offices. But we had people who worked reduced schedules, for various reasons, (including me during the late stage of my pregnancy and then after returning post-maternity leave) and there was always plenty of things that could be done by an attorney on a limited schedule (even if limited to working from the office or home).
|
| Posted 8/3/13 10:52 AM |
| |
|
