by THE HR SPECIALIST: NORTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT LAW on MAY 20, 2012 1:00AM
in DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT,HUMAN RESOURCES


Disabled employees sometimes try to use their medical conditions as an excuse for poor behavior. Don’t fall for it.

Disability can’t be used to avoid discipline for misconduct.

Recent case: Yvett Rudolph had experience working for the state of Louisiana, where she assessed eligibility for food stamps and other social welfare programs. She moved to North Carolina and took a similar job with the Buncombe County *government.

Rudolph had been diagnosed with adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and took Adderall, a prescription drug, for the condition. She told her new employer about her condition up front, before she was hired.

Rudolph had problems almost immediately because she used procedures from her old job in Louisiana, instead of the usual North Carolina processes.

Then she was caught violating a confidentiality rule while trying to determine if a man was eligible for welfare benefits. She had to figure out whether he was receiving money from his wife and if she was part of his household, or whether they were separated, as he claimed.

Instead of following North Carolina rules that required her to send a form for the client to fill out, she took it upon herself to call his wife directly. In doing so, she revealed that the man had applied for welfare benefits, violating state confidentiality rules. Rudolph was terminated for misconduct.

She sued, alleging that her disability made it hard for her to learn new processes and instead had to rely on old habits.

The court said that excuse didn’t cut it. She knew the rules were different in North Carolina and therefore committed misconduct when she ignored them. Her disability was irrelevant. The case was dismissed. (Rudolph v. Buncombe County Government, et al., No. 1-10-CV-203, WD NC, 2012)

http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/30760/dont-let-disability-excuse-worker-misconduct

Foip is a big rule. Nowhere can foip be violated and they totally have a point.

Court got that one right....

Kinda thing that gets ADDers a bad name.

kilted

umh ....what it foip ? ....and yah ....I don't see her mistake as being related to ADHD anyway .....it's not all that hard to figure out that different states would have different laws and violating confidentiality of a client is a giant no-no at any time.....


ADHD doesn't mean you get to go through life ignoring the rules when it suits you ....and that's what it sounds like to me ....


not an ADD type of goof up.....

I concur with what has been said -- but I still hope the state doesn't fight her unemployment. I do know what it's like to have a shredded resume and no unemployment benefits. She is going to have trouble working anywhere in the social service field again.

Although I agree that there's not much one can say that would excuse violating anyone's right to confidentiality, I guess I'm wondering... is she saying that Louisiana doesn't have the same confidentiality provisions? That a phone call to a spouse would be acceptable? If so, then I do have trouble seeing why she's being vilified for her actions.

Has no one else ever faced a new situation and defaulted to doing what you're accustomed to doing?

I'm sure she was trained on their confidentiality provisions, but I'm also sure she was trained on quite literally thousands of other differences in the way eligibility is determined and applications are processed in a different state. Should she really have been expected to remember each and every one of those things 100% of the time?

Why do I have the suspicion that the management were waiting for her to screw up?

Rudolph had problems almost immediately because she used procedures from her old job in Louisiana, instead of the usual North Carolina processes.

Then she was caught violating a confidentiality rule while trying to determine if a man was eligible for welfare benefits. She had to figure out whether he was receiving money from his wife and if she was part of his household, or whether they were separated, as he claimed.

Oh yeah because something similar happened to me. That's why.

Oh it does sound like they were looking for a way to get her, for sure. What I don't get is why people would mention their diagnosis, that does not need to be disclosed, just that you have a disability and here are the accommodations that would help me do my job. When co-workers and management know the disability they have a lot they can target/exploit.

I wonder if they went for her in the dark of night with torches?

What I don't get is why people would mention their diagnosis, that does not need to be disclosed, just that you have a disability and here are the accommodations that would help me do my job. When co-workers and management know the disability they have a lot they can target/exploit.
Because no one tells adults how they're expected to go about the process, other than "do it" or "don't do it." How many of us actually know our rights under the ADA?

http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120301_0000589.WNC.htm/qx

The actual case, a bit different than how it was reported.

Reading through it at the moment. Four insights come to mind reading it:

1) The plaintiff really, really needed legal advice.

2) The management were looking for a pretext to fire her -- and she duly gave it to them.

3) I need to be tested for audio processing disorder.

4) Forget about asking for an accommodation for AD(H)D.

http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120301_0000589.WNC.htm/qx

The actual case, a bit different than how it was reported.

I couldn't read all of it... but I did notice that she had issues submitting some kind of paperwork... first it was late, then too long, then late, then just barely accepted. I don't know if she had help or not, but if she did, they needed to be fired.

'Pro se' means advocating for oneself in court, as versus being represented by a lawyer. At the least she needed legal advice for her initial complaint.

I couldn't read all of it... but I did notice that she had issues submitting some kind of paperwork... first it was late, then too long, then late, then just barely accepted. I don't know if she had help or not, but if she did, they needed to be fired.

'Pro se' means advocating for oneself in court, as versus being represented by a lawyer. At the least she needed legal advice for her initial complaint.


Ah. Don't even remember reading that part. Makes more sense. Not real smart on her part :rolleyes:

Well, she clearly screwed herself by telling them from the outset that her disability wasn't a disability at all, as it didn't impair her in any way. In that case, forget my earlier comments.

I guess that's the problem. People with impairments are afraid to disclose because they don't want to be viewed as weak or incapable or demanding special treatment. Those without impairments are happy to disclose because then they're a token disability hire to whom the employer has to provide nothing.

It seems that people with diagnoses/disabilities are really not well educated on their rights and responsibilities. Up to and including that when you're at at-will employee, you can be fired for any reason--and there are plenty of reasons an employer can find outside your disability, if it comes down to it. She seemed to think she was somehow "unfireable" just because she had ADHD. And thankfully, that's not how this **** works.

I guess that's the problem. People with impairments are afraid to disclose because they don't want to be viewed as weak or incapable or demanding special treatment. Those without impairments are happy to disclose because then they're a token disability hire to whom the employer has to provide nothing.

It seems that people with diagnoses/disabilities are really not well educated on their rights and responsibilities. Up to and including that when you're at at-will employee, you can be fired for any reason--and there are plenty of reasons an employer can find outside your disability, if it comes down to it. She seemed to think she was somehow "unfireable" just because she had ADHD. And thankfully, that's not how this **** works.

really good point trish.:thankyou::goodpost: