Getting fired due to mental illness? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

In your example, wouldn't you have to make some kind of reasonable accommodation for that now disabled employee? Like perhaps offering a desk job for them - they obviously don't have to accept, but I would think the employer would have to show they made some kind of effort if they have the capacity to do so.

I dont think that would be a reasonable accommodation unless the employee is qualified for such work and you routinely are in need of such work.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sorry guys, I have lost track of some of the questions floating about. Highly doubt she will do anything (will expand on that further in the post), but I do like the discussion and forum to vent a little. Keep in mind that obviously I have one side of all this.

- She has been at this clinic for about 6 years

- She has been completely open (more than she needs to be, frankly) about being bipolar and anything that has been going on.

- She had a review probably 5 months ago. At that time 2 of the 3 points he required correcting were brought up. It was more of a "let's improve on these things" not "I need to see this in X months or we are parting ways".

- Production was not one of the 3 points in his email, but was brought up when they talked for the last time. It has been discussed before. Basically, she is not the fastest, and therefore can't get clients in and out as fast as the other doctor. That is a factor of many things, and they agreed in the past that the things she brings to the table (remembers everything, takes the time to look up everything, gets involved with the clientele, etc.. ) outweighed the slight lack of production.

- What has been going on in the last month might be related, but has been a different animal completely. About a month ago he has a horrible migraine that lasted a couple days. After a bit it was effecting vision and her ability to even get around. I took her to Urgent Care, and they sent her to the ER for the tests. She has had several since then, and we still have no answers (just did the MRI last week, and are waiting for a reply from the headache clinic in Madison to start exploring stuff with them). She has had to call out several times in that time, had some sick days to use, and it got to the point where we wanted to take the 1st 2 weeks of Feb. off (possibly using vacation time). At that time he suggested starting immediately, and taking a month.

- I am sure her headaches are a combo of her MI and something else - different birth control, different mix of meds, something physical, etc.

- There is some precedent set at the clinic in the past of working with employees who are dealing with something acute.

Basically I am just furious with the timing. IMO he should have been straight forward with the severity of his feelings at the time of the review and set a timeline. Why the hell would he wait now, suggest the time off, and then fire her 1/4 of the way through - with the reason being that he doesn't think she will get better, hence she won't be able to do the 3 things outlined.

If needed, there is documentation of the trip to the ER, Urgent Care, tests run, along with visits to her psychiatrist and therapists. I was pissed and thought we might have a case if we wanted to go that route because of the timing of the termination and lack of either a timeline set or reasonable accommodations.

I guess I have stated there were sticking points, but don't think I was specific. Here they are, and what they talked about a couple days ago.

1. Getting to work on time. Specifically wanted her there at 7:50 going forward (appts start at 8). This is 100% a reflection of her condition. She was never 30mins late or anything, but a lot of times it is a chore for her to get out of bed even, and would get there a few minutes late consistently. She told him this and said that a lot of what this month off was about (along with hopefully getting some answers on the headache front) was to get her into a healthier routine and try to take care of a lot of stresses around the house that are building up so she is better equipped at handling the day. She was fine with this and agreed that could be met.

2. Files had to be done within 48 hours. THIS seemed to be the main sticking point that they argued about. From what I can gather, this is a function of multiple factors: her being spent and not able to focus after an appt, the owner coming in to ask her about his cases while she is catching up, her being slow and deliberate in her records, the receptionists scheduling appts during the time she was working on files. This is where she said she wanted some accommodation and requested a few hours a week that were JUST for catching up on records (something they agreed to before all this, btw) - with NO outside disturbances, appointments, etc..

3. No Professional discounts - she didn't know what this meant, and he really couldn't explain it any more. Evidently he was pissed she discounted a procedure once to get the client to come in. She says they would have gone elsewhere, did it the once to get them in, and usually lets the up front people handle the invoices.

4. Production - while not listed in his email, this came up in their last meeting and was evidently the other big thing that has been bugging him. Like I said it was discussed before and they agreed that what she brought to the clinic outweighed the raw numbers, but obviously that changed recently too. Again, they discussed that and reasons it might be like that - some her, some the clinic, etc..

Anyway, I am just about done blabbing (damn whiskey). I am pretty sure she won't do anything legally for a few reasons. This came at the best and worst possible time for us. Worst because she was already hitting bottom with everything swirling around, best because we just got some inheritance $ from her uncle that passed last year. Nothing that made us rich, but we can pay off a couple bills that have been a stress and give her a cushion to figure stuff out. She might have been more willing to do something if that wasn't there. Also, she is concerned about word of mouth. Doctors know doctors in the Madison area, and she figures if she needs to find something in the area she doesn't want blood in the water. Lastly, she still likes a lot of people still at the clinic. It is a small practice, and she figures that any more strain financial or otherwise will just effect them too.

She did the right thing at their meeting - it was a stand off, and she forced his hand and made him let her go. I told her to file for unemployment, take an extended time to get as healthy as possible and find something that will make her happy.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

1). He was aware of her disability. He's the one who suggested she take the month off to recuperate.

2). Firing someone during a medical leave is about the highest risk firing there is. Because if she's out on leave, she didn't do anything to justify the firing at the time the firing occurred. Put another way, if there was a performance related basis to fire her, why didn't he fire her when those performance reasons arose? Once she's out on leave, it's hard to argue that there were new performance problems that prompted the termination.

3). It's hard to argue that a one month leave isn't a reasonable accommodation of her disability if the employer is the one who recommended it.

4). While the employer doesn't have enough employees to be covered by the federal ADA, it appears that they are subject to Wisconsin's state law prohibiting disability discrimination.

I'm a defense lawyer, and these facts as recited would give me a lot of heartburn. Not saying there aren't other facts that could support a viable and ultimately successful defense.

Plus it was unpaid, so there really isn't a reason they couldn't bring in a temp doctor to help out (there are tons in the area who do just that). There was even a doctor that quit several months ago that came back and helped during the other doctor's recent pregnancy.

 

[tonydead]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

In your example, wouldn't you have to make some kind of reasonable accommodation for that now disabled employee? Like perhaps offering a desk job for them - they obviously don't have to accept, but I would think the employer would have to show they made some kind of effort if they have the capacity to do so.

No, absolutely not. If you later advertised a job opening for a desk job and the former employee applied then you would have rank him against his applicant peers without taking in consideration the disability because it doesn't have any bearing on him performing a desk job.

If he applied for a leg wrestling instructors position you wouldn't have to consider him at all because he does not have the ability to perform that job.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

In your example, wouldn't you have to make some kind of reasonable accommodation for that now disabled employee? Like perhaps offering a desk job for them - they obviously don't have to accept, but I would think the employer would have to show they made some kind of effort if they have the capacity to do so.

No, absolutely not. If you later advertised a job opening for a desk job and the former employee applied then you would have rank him against his applicant peers without taking in consideration the disability because it doesn't have any bearing on him performing a desk job.

If he applied for a leg wrestling instructors position you wouldn't have to consider him at all because he does not have the ability to perform that job.

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

 

[tonydead]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

In your example, wouldn't you have to make some kind of reasonable accommodation for that now disabled employee? Like perhaps offering a desk job for them - they obviously don't have to accept, but I would think the employer would have to show they made some kind of effort if they have the capacity to do so.

No, absolutely not. If you later advertised a job opening for a desk job and the former employee applied then you would have rank him against his applicant peers without taking in consideration the disability because it doesn't have any bearing on him performing a desk job.If he applied for a leg wrestling instructors position you wouldn't have to consider him at all because he does not have the ability to perform that job.

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

Both heart attack and cancer are not automatically considered a disability under Ada. Each case is taken on its own merit. Both are conditions often diagnosed during employment too (obviously the heart attack which is your first hand example) which further complicates it. If it's an existing condition you are not required to disclose a disability unless you need reasonable accommodation. Did that happen? Otherwise the employer can't foresee the accommodation and it seems like it was disclosed after the termination.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Methinks you aren't bothering to read any posts.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Methinks you aren't bothering to read any posts.

He isn't. He is debating something else entirely.

Good luck to you both. Migraines are the worst.

 

[bigbottom]

KP: check your messages.

 

[bigbottom]

Having a disability that makes it so you can't perform the job description isn't discrimination. It's discrimination against disabled people versus non-disabled people that are both perfectly able to perform the job in question. If I own a telephone pole company that hires people to regularly climb telephone poles and one of them gets into a car accident and loses his legs I'm not required to keep that employee employed.

Of course the OP doesn't list the job description, so it's hard to tell but, most job descriptions include showing up on time and making assignment deadlines. The employer may be required to make some accommodations for her disability in order for her to be timely, however, he also has to be made aware of the disability.

I don't see any action at this point against the employer.

In your example, wouldn't you have to make some kind of reasonable accommodation for that now disabled employee? Like perhaps offering a desk job for them - they obviously don't have to accept, but I would think the employer would have to show they made some kind of effort if they have the capacity to do so.

No, absolutely not. If you later advertised a job opening for a desk job and the former employee applied then you would have rank him against his applicant peers without taking in consideration the disability because it doesn't have any bearing on him performing a desk job.If he applied for a leg wrestling instructors position you wouldn't have to consider him at all because he does not have the ability to perform that job.

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

Both heart attack and cancer are not automatically considered a disability under Ada. Each case is taken on its own merit. Both are conditions often diagnosed during employment too (obviously the heart attack which is your first hand example) which further complicates it.

Under the ADA Amendments Act and its implementing regulations, cancer is indeed pretty much automatically considered a disability. Same with bi-polar disorder, by the way.

(iii) For example, applying the principles set forth in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section, it should easily be concluded that the following types of impairments will, at a minimum, substantially limit the major life activities indicated: Deafness substantially limits hearing; blindness substantially limits seeing; an intellectual disability (formerly termed mental ######ation) substantially limits brain function; partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair substantially limit musculoskeletal function; autism substantially limits brain function; cancer substantially limits normal cell growth; cerebral palsy substantially limits brain function; diabetes substantially limits endocrine function; epilepsy substantially limits neurological function; Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection substantially limits immune function; multiple sclerosis substantially limits neurological function; muscular dystrophy substantially limits neurological function; and major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia substantially limit brain function. The types of impairments described in this section may substantially limit additional major life activities not explicitly listed above.

This is the federal regulation on what impairments are pretty much automatically considered a disability under the ADA. Given that we are dealing with a state statute here, we'd need to verify whether or not they follow federal guidance on the issue (states often do).

 

[Pipes]

So if Charles Manson got out and applied for a job in WI a potential employer couldn't use his criminal background as a basis to not hire him?

Correct. I think a few industries would be allowed to, but most could not. Wisconsin is different than most states regarding this.

Has a company ever been found guilty of this sort of "discrimination"? I would think it would be really easy for an employer to argue we didn't hire Joe because we found a better candidate. How would an unhired person go about proving this sort of thing?

 

[DallasDMac]

I suppose this will sound "mean" and all but, after reading post 52, I can see why he wanted to let her go. Regularly late, slow, etc. I'm actually a little surprised people are piling on the boss so badly. If you were him, is this something you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis? I can see where he might be more than willing to pay a little severance just to be done with it or whatever. But I certainly can't fault him for wanting to move on.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I suppose this will sound "mean" and all but, after reading post 52, I can see why he wanted to let her go. Regularly late, slow, etc. I'm actually a little surprised people are piling on the boss so badly. If you were him, is this something you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis? I can see where he might be more than willing to pay a little severance just to be done with it or whatever. But I certainly can't fault him for wanting to move on.

I can see that side of it, I really can. HOWEVER, he had 6 years to do so and she really hasn't changed that much in the last few years. The only thing that has drastically changed in the last month with the call outs is the migraines, so that is where the #### move comes in. No reason to wait until now, and really no reason to pretend to give her time to get things together and cut ties 1/4 the way through.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

This is huge for you in Wisconsin. The fact that your wife was very transparent all along the way is very good too. That they had spoken and agreed to in the past that 3 hours per week would be all she needed to stay current on files sounds pretty reasonable too.

I think you have a tough sell though on the 8am start time and not being consistent there. That is a pretty critical function of a vet business. Those morning appointments book fast because people want to be able to take their pets to the doc before work. I used to have to book like 3 weeks out for the early AM times. Mid-afternoon was always open. I also don't really see how you tie it to a medical condition. I could see if somehow daylight was a factor, but then that would be a sliding scale all year. The simple fix would be go to bed earlier and get up earlier. I am unaware of a diagnosis that the doctor would ever say "Getting up before 7am no matter what time of year and what time patient goes to bed will always be inconsistent." Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that just doesn't sound like something that exists.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

This is huge for you in Wisconsin. The fact that your wife was very transparent all along the way is very good too. That they had spoken and agreed to in the past that 3 hours per week would be all she needed to stay current on files sounds pretty reasonable too.

I think you have a tough sell though on the 8am start time and not being consistent there. That is a pretty critical function of a vet business. Those morning appointments book fast because people want to be able to take their pets to the doc before work. I used to have to book like 3 weeks out for the early AM times. Mid-afternoon was always open. I also don't really see how you tie it to a medical condition. I could see if somehow daylight was a factor, but then that would be a sliding scale all year. The simple fix would be go to bed earlier and get up earlier. I am unaware of a diagnosis that the doctor would ever say "Getting up before 7am no matter what time of year and what time patient goes to bed will always be inconsistent." Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that just doesn't sound like something that exists.

A lot of the late thing is tied into the depression/insomnia, etc.. Some tied in to in general having trouble getting up and motivated to talk to people when she is depressed. Also during those times (a lot of the time) it is at night that her mind starts in and she has a ton of trouble getting to sleep. Usually when depressed she will be up to 2am or so. We realize and agree that this is a main focus and needs to be combated somehow. They have tried a couple different sleep aids, but I don't think any have worked really well. Either reacts with her other meds, doesn't make her sleep, or knocks her out so much it is even harder to wake up in the am. Besides the headaches, this is our focus during her time off.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Again, this clinic also had a history of accommodating people who had a physical condition, ie giving 3 months paid leave after they had a heart attack. It wasn't a doctor, but the fact remains that they gave that person a chance to heal up and attempt to come back.

According to her she asked him point blank "if I was having these same performance issues because I was battling cancer/going through chemo, would we be having this conversation?", at which point he stammered for a bit and shakily said "I think we would".

This is huge for you in Wisconsin. The fact that your wife was very transparent all along the way is very good too. That they had spoken and agreed to in the past that 3 hours per week would be all she needed to stay current on files sounds pretty reasonable too.

I think you have a tough sell though on the 8am start time and not being consistent there. That is a pretty critical function of a vet business. Those morning appointments book fast because people want to be able to take their pets to the doc before work. I used to have to book like 3 weeks out for the early AM times. Mid-afternoon was always open. I also don't really see how you tie it to a medical condition. I could see if somehow daylight was a factor, but then that would be a sliding scale all year. The simple fix would be go to bed earlier and get up earlier. I am unaware of a diagnosis that the doctor would ever say "Getting up before 7am no matter what time of year and what time patient goes to bed will always be inconsistent." Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that just doesn't sound like something that exists.

A lot of the late thing is tied into the depression/insomnia, etc.. Some tied in to in general having trouble getting up and motivated to talk to people when she is depressed. Also during those times (a lot of the time) it is at night that her mind starts in and she has a ton of trouble getting to sleep. Usually when depressed she will be up to 2am or so. We realize and agree that this is a main focus and needs to be combated somehow. They have tried a couple different sleep aids, but I don't think any have worked really well. Either reacts with her other meds, doesn't make her sleep, or knocks her out so much it is even harder to wake up in the am. Besides the headaches, this is our focus during her time off.

You don't need to justify it to me. I live in Wisconsin too GB. I sometimes don't want to get up and get going just because I know it is 5 below out. Add in 10 more factors I am not dealing with like your wife is and I could see rolling into work a bit late all the time. I am just trying to lay out the other side for you.

 

[D_House]

KP, it sounds like your wife is a physician, is that right?

 

[KarmaPolice]

KP, it sounds like your wife is a physician, is that right?

Yes, for animals.

 

[renesauz]

I suppose this will sound "mean" and all but, after reading post 52, I can see why he wanted to let her go. Regularly late, slow, etc. I'm actually a little surprised people are piling on the boss so badly. If you were him, is this something you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis? I can see where he might be more than willing to pay a little severance just to be done with it or whatever. But I certainly can't fault him for wanting to move on.

This. Bipolar is a royal PIA to deal with.

 

[parasaurolophus]

None of the following ever went to litigation. These were simply things that were done or not done after conversations/meetings with our atty, the union, and the employees. None of the injuries or conditions were considered work related.

These were deemed reasonable accommodations-

Warehouse worker permanently disabled with hip condition. Been with company 25 years. We bought a special forklift and some other equipment. Our attorney said with the size of our company, average we spent on other lifts, and age of other lifts, we would not be able to argue this wasn't reasonable to basically make an extra $10,000 investment to keep a long term employee fully working.

Salesrep with lung condition. Long term employee. Determined that they needed some flexibility when temps were very warm or very cold. Is able to make phone calls to customers on those days instead of visiting.

Driver with circulatory issue. Needs 2 extra 30 minute breaks during the day to be able to walk around or needs to always be on short haul runs.

Warehouse worker with gout- Permanent 25 pound lifting restriction. Only 30% of our SKU's are below 25lbs. Union presented though that he be able to do all the misc work and pick the products that are below 25lbs as well as some office paperwork that we occasionally brought in temps for or paid a shredding service.

These were determined to not be reasonable-

Warehouse worker with knee and foot issues. Would call in sick because pain in knee was too great causing him to have to take pain medication which disqualifies him from work. It simply wasn't something we could make arrangements to cover for. Too unpredictable and disruptive. Happened about 1-2 times per pay period. Had to let him go.

Alcoholic would miss work or show up late frequently. Office job, but more strategic. He had a device in his car where he couldn't start it if he had been drinking. At first he would call and say his car wouldn't start. After several times he came clean. He was in treatment, AA, etc. Used two weeks vacation once and some FMLA leave for rehab. We tried to work with him, but it simply became too much and was too unpredictable so we let him go.

I already mentioned the equipment guy out in the field that never informed us earlier in the thread, but that one went to the ERD.

Common theme seems to be as long as the company can manage around it without too great a burden it has to be accommodated. The WERD is pretty easy to deal with and the forms are incredibly easy to understand. IIRC the first step with them is basically filling out a form and making a claim. The company then replies and a determination is made. If that determination is against you, then you are entitled to a hearing. I would maybe try the first part without an atty and if rejected maybe then go to an attorney. Wisconsin usually has a lot of FAQ pages for this kind of stuff so I would read up there.

Good luck.

ETA: Here is link to form. On page 2 there are some instructions. One of the first things mentioned is...

If other employees in similar situations were treated better than you were, please give their names, state what happened to them and describe how they differ from you in terms of the box(es) you checked in section #3.

Can't emphasize enough how often our atty stresses this to us and how important it is in wisconsin as far as it being a "follow your policy" state.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I suppose this will sound "mean" and all but, after reading post 52, I can see why he wanted to let her go. Regularly late, slow, etc. I'm actually a little surprised people are piling on the boss so badly. If you were him, is this something you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis? I can see where he might be more than willing to pay a little severance just to be done with it or whatever. But I certainly can't fault him for wanting to move on.

This. Bipolar is a royal PIA to deal with.

I guess we should be thankful you guys weren't her boss for the last few years.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Your wife definitely has a case. The question is whether or not it's worth her while to pursue it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Your wife definitely has a case. The question is whether or not it's worth her while to pursue it.

Yeah, not sure how much good would come of this route. She seems to be at peace with it, especially after reading a bit of outcry from clients and staff. The feeling I get is that if it was a bigger clinic and her doing it would maybe protect somebody else in the future with a similar circumstance she would do it. Like I stated above, I think she feels doing it might put others more at risk just by adding financial stress to the clinic.

 

[renesauz]

I suppose this will sound "mean" and all but, after reading post 52, I can see why he wanted to let her go. Regularly late, slow, etc. I'm actually a little surprised people are piling on the boss so badly. If you were him, is this something you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis? I can see where he might be more than willing to pay a little severance just to be done with it or whatever. But I certainly can't fault him for wanting to move on.

This. Bipolar is a royal PIA to deal with.

I guess we should be thankful you guys weren't her boss for the last few years.

Read my prior posts. I'm intimately familiar with the devastation it can cause, as well as the insidious way it can destroy everything it touches. Working around it or through it is not only extraordinarily difficult, but generally unfair to those forced to. I wish you nothing but the best and I hope her treatment is more successful then my X's, but it's patently unfair/wrong to force others to put up with it. Mental illness and it's effects are not remotely like physical disabilities, not matter what the law says.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Your wife definitely has a case. The question is whether or not it's worth her while to pursue it.

Yeah, not sure how much good would come of this route. She seems to be at peace with it, especially after reading a bit of outcry from clients and staff. The feeling I get is that if it was a bigger clinic and her doing it would maybe protect somebody else in the future with a similar circumstance she would do it. Like I stated above, I think she feels doing it might put others more at risk just by adding financial stress to the clinic.

And does she really want to go back there?

 

[shadyridr]

All I wanna say is I feel sorry for your wife because nobody understand mental illness and/or depression. Seems the boss doesn't either. That being said, I don't blame the boss for letting her go. It's just a real bad situation for everyone. Best wishes to your wife.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Your wife definitely has a case. The question is whether or not it's worth her while to pursue it.

Yeah, not sure how much good would come of this route. She seems to be at peace with it, especially after reading a bit of outcry from clients and staff. The feeling I get is that if it was a bigger clinic and her doing it would maybe protect somebody else in the future with a similar circumstance she would do it. Like I stated above, I think she feels doing it might put others more at risk just by adding financial stress to the clinic.

And does she really want to go back there?

That is not a question anymore. He officially fired her, she is not going back there.

Her even debating that was more when he sent the email and it wasn't official, just seemed to be pointing in that direction.

 

[Doug B]

KP, sorry to hear about your family's troubles. Had a thought when reading through the back half of this thread:

Around here, house-call vets are becoming really popular -- veterinarians who break away from established clinics and work for themselves. Does it make sense for your wife to be her own boss and work her own hours taking/making house calls? I wouldn't call it a totally stress-free alternative to working out a clinic, because she might be tied to a cell phone a lot of the time (esp if she, say, offers after-business-hours house calls in exchange for not working early mornings) and she'd be doing a lot of driving (business deduction, though). The flip side would be that when she needs some slack to take care of files and such, she can give it to herself. She would also totally control her own appointment book (might have to tell pet owners 'no' sometimes, though ... could be hard at times).

 

[jwb]

The way the boss did it is terrible. No denying that. To offer a month, then during that month deciding "time to move on" is poor form.

I do understand the frustration he has, though. Things like lateness and not getting the work done - there's just no accommodation there that makes sense to me. You can't allow someone to be late because they can't get out of bed, mental illness or not. You may as well not have any rules for anyone then. At some point, you have to say "Look, be on time. That's it."

I do hope your wife gets well. My wife has mild depression, and takes medication for it, which is a help.

 

[jwb]

KP, sorry to hear about your family's troubles. Had a thought when reading through the back half of this thread:

Around here, house-call vets are becoming really popular -- veterinarians who break away from established clinics and work for themselves. Does it make sense for your wife to be her own boss and work her own hours taking/making house calls? I wouldn't call it a totally stress-free alternative to working out a clinic, because she might be tied to a cell phone a lot of the time (esp if she, say, offers after-business-hours house calls in exchange for not working early mornings) and she'd be doing a lot of driving (business deduction, though). The flip side would be that when she needs some slack to take care of files and such, she can give it to herself. She would also totally control her own appointment book (might have to tell pet owners 'no' sometimes, though ... could be hard at times).

 

[Johnny Rock]

Your wife definitely has a case. The question is whether or not it's worth her while to pursue it.

Yeah, not sure how much good would come of this route. She seems to be at peace with it, especially after reading a bit of outcry from clients and staff. The feeling I get is that if it was a bigger clinic and her doing it would maybe protect somebody else in the future with a similar circumstance she would do it. Like I stated above, I think she feels doing it might put others more at risk just by adding financial stress to the clinic.

Any stress during hearings, depositions and legal wranglings will be on her and the boss mainly. Since she is already depressed then her well-being during this even higher stress period would be my major concern if you move forward. I doubt the clinic would be at risk at all because insurance would handle their defense. The other workers probably won't like the boss's mood but I don't see a financial risk.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

KP, I like you. But I have to side with the boss on this one. Not saying it was handled perfectly, but I think it's unreasonable to expect someone to handle this perfectly. Sounds like the boss has been dealing with these issues for several years. I think that would be hard for any manager to deal with. The boss had to make a tough decision. And those decisions don't always work out best for everyone. I wish you the best. Sounds like a difficult situation for all involved.

Just curious though... what do you and your wife think the boss could have done differently (aside from not firing your wife)? Is your wife able to accept any personal responsibility for her poor performance?

 

[bigbottom]

KP, I like you. But I have to side with the boss on this one. Not saying it was handled perfectly, but I think it's unreasonable to expect someone to handle this perfectly. Sounds like the boss has been dealing with these issues for several years. I think that would be hard for any manager to deal with. The boss had to make a tough decision. And those decisions don't always work out best for everyone. I wish you the best. Sounds like a difficult situation for all involved.

Just curious though... what do you and your wife think the boss could have done differently (aside from not firing your wife)? Is your wife able to accept any personal responsibility for her poor performance?

He's already mentioned allowing her scheduled time during the week to work on her files. They appeared to have agreed to this, but then the front desk would still schedule appointments or walk-ins during that time. He could have also allowed her the month to recuperate from her latest setback. You know, the accommodation that the employer himself recommended (and then retracted after she had already begun the leave).

 

[KarmaPolice]

KP, I like you. But I have to side with the boss on this one. Not saying it was handled perfectly, but I think it's unreasonable to expect someone to handle this perfectly. Sounds like the boss has been dealing with these issues for several years. I think that would be hard for any manager to deal with. The boss had to make a tough decision. And those decisions don't always work out best for everyone. I wish you the best. Sounds like a difficult situation for all involved.

Just curious though... what do you and your wife think the boss could have done differently (aside from not firing your wife)? Is your wife able to accept any personal responsibility for her poor performance?

Of course she takes some responsibility. I hope I haven't come across in my rants that this is not the case.

My main points about how I think he could have handled it differently:

1. IF these issues were truly as serious as it seems to have been for him and building up for awhile address this during reviews/draw a hard line.

2. Actually grant her the request of having more time for files, or be up front and state that he didn't think it was reasonable

3. Don't pretend to give her time to attempt to fix some of this just to yank that away at the start.

It is just odd that he was able to deal with it for years (during reviews saying there was stuff to work on, but the positives outweighed the negatives), just to pull the plug when something more physical came in to the mix. I guess it just finally was too much for all.

We/she thinks it was a 50/50 mix of fault, and she was initially willing to give it a go. While it is not every day, the being late this was on her. While it sucks when you are in a depression, there are things that we know could have been a bigger focus and she needs to have better night rituals (again, that was a huge focus of having the time off). She needs a routine, get consistent sleep, eat better, get exercise, etc... That is on her, and she wanted and needs to give that an honest go.

The production and files was a different issue we felt. As with human doctors, there are all sorts of personalities and bedside manners. Some are quick, don't talk much, and efficient. That works for some patients, but not for all. My wife is different. She gets down with the animals to calm them, gets to know the owners, makes house calls on her days off, etc... She does have a lot of requests for her for these reasons. However, the exams take longer, maybe they get slightly behind, it zaps her emotionally, etc, etc.. She also has a damn near photographic memory and is always digging around for something they might have missed. Because of this, during the reviews it was also left at that while she didn't make the clinic as much $/hr, she was valuable to the clinic by what she brought to the table. Also the things she did weren't as expensive as well. This is the way she is and wants to practice medicine that is not going to change, and that is the way she was upon hiring her 6 years ago too.

The files were a different issue. A big part is the way she does them. She wants to make is so that any other doctor picks up that file and can instantly know and catch up on what is going on with that animal. According to her, the others do the bare minimum just to get them out of the way and it is hard to follow and you might have to call them to know what they were doing. Again, she felt that a couple hours a week JUST to do files wasn't unreasonable. He even agreed and started that, but after a couple weeks a few things would happen: 1. He and the other doctors would pick her brain about their cases (because she remembers everything), and/or the receptionists would still give her appts. They never seemed to give it a serious go, and the files got a bit behind as well. When they talked about this again last week, he didn't think that was possible going forward. Fittingly, now that the other doctor has a newborn and doesn't stick around after scheduled hours, she also has asked for a little time for files or to have a way to do them at home.

Long story short, he just had enough and wanted to part ways. Cool. I think she was just taken aback by the timing, and unwillingness to give her a chance after her month off.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Take some time off and she can start her own practice with her own hours, rules and like-minded people. Plenty would appreciate the loving care. I know we do. Best of luck.

 

[KarmaPolice]

KP, sorry to hear about your family's troubles. Had a thought when reading through the back half of this thread:

Around here, house-call vets are becoming really popular -- veterinarians who break away from established clinics and work for themselves. Does it make sense for your wife to be her own boss and work her own hours taking/making house calls? I wouldn't call it a totally stress-free alternative to working out a clinic, because she might be tied to a cell phone a lot of the time (esp if she, say, offers after-business-hours house calls in exchange for not working early mornings) and she'd be doing a lot of driving (business deduction, though). The flip side would be that when she needs some slack to take care of files and such, she can give it to herself. She would also totally control her own appointment book (might have to tell pet owners 'no' sometimes, though ... could be hard at times).

Despite my annoyance she did already start looking at what else is out there. A bad part about our area is that it is slightly saturated, I assume due to the UW being close by.

There are pros and cons to all the stuff she mentioned:

1. House calls - She has 0 desire to own her own business. The idea of this appeals to her because we don't use daycare with our 11 month old, and she could set her own hours. The business side is a con as is the lack of being able to do more complicated cases, which is a love of hers.

2. Emergency - Hell, she is already a night owl and there are 2 emergency clinics hiring in Madison. She loves the idea of seeing the gross/complicated cases, and they have specialists on call or at the clinic. She also loves being able to see an animal throughout their life, so that is a con of this job. Also, they would have to pay enough to justify daycare, and managing her sleep and other rituals is a concern for me.

3. Regular practice - what she does now. She still loves what she does, but there is always schedules to balance and other things. Again, we might need to get daycare if they aren't as willing to have as flexible of a schedule.

4. ???? - something else completely

As much as I didn't like her poking around, I did tell her to email one place. It's a bit of a drive, but she knows the owners. It is currently a clinic that is just large animal, but they had an ad for bringing in a small animal doctor to expand the practice. Stated in the ad they would do flex schedule, new doc could do things their way (I am sure within reason), etc.. This seems like a great opp for basically being her own boss without as much pressure as doing the business side that doesn't interest her. I said it was at least worth a reply and conversation.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Take some time off and she can start her own practice with her own hours, rules and like-minded people. Plenty would appreciate the loving care. I know we do. Best of luck.

We have 0 money for that, and she has 0 interest in that. She did have a circle of doctors she loved from another job she was at, and they would joke about opening their own place when they got together for drinks. She always said she would work for them, but couldn't contribute other ways. I don't see her doing her own thing unless it was more of a house call business, or she wanted to pursue her acupuncture that she had a lot of success with at this last clinic. (again, maybe house calls or out of the house somehow)

 

[Christo]

You can't just get mad and fire someone you don't like anymore.

Sure you can.

 

[Eminence]

If the illness wasn't disclosed prior to hire, I would think it would be legal. It wouldn't automatically disqualify them but you'd think the employer would have a gripe if this information was discovered after the fact.

If they knew upfront, I'd say you have a solid argument.

 

[Eminence]

You can't just get mad and fire someone you don't like anymore.

Sure you can.

Yup, most states are "at will". You can be fired for no reason. Obviously you'll have to deal with your unemployment insurance rates going up if you keep firing people wrongfully. That's one Achilles heel to firing with reckless abandon.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

KP, sorry to hear about your family's troubles. Had a thought when reading through the back half of this thread:

Around here, house-call vets are becoming really popular -- veterinarians who break away from established clinics and work for themselves. Does it make sense for your wife to be her own boss and work her own hours taking/making house calls? I wouldn't call it a totally stress-free alternative to working out a clinic, because she might be tied to a cell phone a lot of the time (esp if she, say, offers after-business-hours house calls in exchange for not working early mornings) and she'd be doing a lot of driving (business deduction, though). The flip side would be that when she needs some slack to take care of files and such, she can give it to herself. She would also totally control her own appointment book (might have to tell pet owners 'no' sometimes, though ... could be hard at times).

Despite my annoyance she did already start looking at what else is out there. A bad part about our area is that it is slightly saturated, I assume due to the UW being close by.

There are pros and cons to all the stuff she mentioned:

1. House calls - She has 0 desire to own her own business. The idea of this appeals to her because we don't use daycare with our 11 month old, and she could set her own hours. The business side is a con as is the lack of being able to do more complicated cases, which is a love of hers.

2. Emergency - Hell, she is already a night owl and there are 2 emergency clinics hiring in Madison. She loves the idea of seeing the gross/complicated cases, and they have specialists on call or at the clinic. She also loves being able to see an animal throughout their life, so that is a con of this job. Also, they would have to pay enough to justify daycare, and managing her sleep and other rituals is a concern for me.

3. Regular practice - what she does now. She still loves what she does, but there is always schedules to balance and other things. Again, we might need to get daycare if they aren't as willing to have as flexible of a schedule.

4. ???? - something else completely

As much as I didn't like her poking around, I did tell her to email one place. It's a bit of a drive, but she knows the owners. It is currently a clinic that is just large animal, but they had an ad for bringing in a small animal doctor to expand the practice. Stated in the ad they would do flex schedule, new doc could do things their way (I am sure within reason), etc.. This seems like a great opp for basically being her own boss without as much pressure as doing the business side that doesn't interest her. I said it was at least worth a reply and conversation.

That last one sounds really good if they can work with Mrs. KP and understand her issues. A lot of people with large animal needs also have the regular size pets. It could be a good fit.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

KP, I do wish you the best. This might be a blessing in disguise, in that without the stresses of her job, your wife will have the time and emotional space to deal with some issues. Perhaps you guys should also consider some therapy/professional counseling. It gets a bad rap, but from personal experience, it is tremendously helpful and cathartic.