MODERATED AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)

[GozerZuul]

Always love to read all about the hijinks these woke capitalists like getting up to when they think nobody's looking

i tend to agree...while being a dirty capitalist myself! ha ha. get that money!

 

[can't touch this]

i tend to agree...while being a dirty capitalist myself! ha ha. get that money!

I mean "woke" capitalism. Basically it's when Monopoly Man exchanges his top hat & monocle for a flat bill cap and T-shirt that says "This is what a feminist looks like", runs some low effort PR "how do you do, fellow kidz" and a scary number of Millennials fall for it every single time

 

[seasonaldude]

I mean "woke" capitalism. Basically it's when Monopoly Man exchanges his top hat & monocle for a flat bill cap and T-shirt that says "This is what a feminist looks like", runs some low effort PR "how do you do, fellow kidz" and a scary number of Millennials fall for it every single time

Wine moms fall for it far more than Millennials. Approximately half of millennials support socialism. They are woke, not "woke" capitalists. Wine moms, however, are all for "responsible" capitalist pigs because they recycle, give their third world sweatshop workers a day off a year (unpaid), think small business tyrants are the backbone of the economy, and they give money to Democrats who won't tax the fuck out of them.

 

[Goingstrong]

I think they were making that shit up.
They may have to do the paperwork every six months but you don't.
If the doctor marked it as a permanent condition, they can use that every time.

SSDI on the other hand actually has people who have been deaf since birth reestablish that they are still deaf every five years.
You gotta love the federal government.

Sadly no.

The law allows the employer to request recertification at a maximum of every six months, and they may request up to three opinions in some cases (second and third at employer expense with a state doctor).

 

[commiecorvus]

Sadly no.

The law allows the employer to request recertification at a maximum of every six months, and they may request up to three opinions in some cases (second and third at employer expense with a state doctor).

The laws doesn't say that and they can't request extra opinions as long as the doctor you have provided is a specialist in the field of your disability (your chiropractor won't work).
Fuck them if they try that.

Can employers require employees to periodically or annually recertify the ongoing need for accommodation, and request updated/new medical information as part of the process?

Only under limited circumstances.
Remember, under the ADA, employers may not ask disability-related questions of employees unless those questions meet the standard of being “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
When reasonable and sufficient medical documentation that establishes an ADA-qualifying disability was previously provided by an employee for the purpose of receiving accommodation, an employer will not likely have a job-related reason to request updated/new medical information on an annual or periodic basis simply because the employer wants to do this as a practice.
For example, if an employee who has a long-term or permanent medical impairment has been accommodated for some time and there is no change in either the medical impairment, limitations, need for accommodation, ability to perform job duties, or the employer’s ability to accommodate, then asking questions about the continuing need for accommodation, or requesting updated/new medical documentation, will not meet the job-related and consistent with business necessity standard.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a medical inquiry or examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity when:

• an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee's ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition, or
• an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition, or
• an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation and the employee's disability or need for accommodation is not known or obvious, or
• required in positions that affect public safety, such as police and fire fighters.

When can employees be asked to provide updated disability-related information about their ongoing need for accommodation?

There can be individual circumstances when requesting information about the ongoing need for accommodation may meet the job-related and consistent with business necessity standard, on a case-by-case basis.
To avoid violating the ADA’s disability-related inquiry rules, employers should be aware of what is already known about the employee’s medical impairment and need for accommodation before engaging in the process of requesting updated medical information.
According to the EEOC, employers cannot ask for medical documentation when the disability and the need for reasonable accommodation are known or obvious, or the individual has already provided the employer with sufficient information to substantiate an ADA disability.

When an employer does not have sufficient disability-related information, or there is a significant change that will impact the provision of reasonable accommodation, then it can be appropriate to request information from employees about their ongoing need for accommodation. The following situations are examples of when it may be appropriate to request disability-related information to recertify the ongoing need for accommodation:

• When the original medical documentation/request for accommodation indicates that the employee's medical impairment/limitations/need for accommodation will change (e.g., employee has MS and medical documentation indicates that symptoms, limitations, and need for accommodation may change due to the nature of the medical impairment)
• When no duration for the need for accommodation was provided in the original medical documentation/request for accommodation (e.g., request to modify schedule does not indicate for how many days, weeks, months, etc.)
• When the duration for the need for accommodation was provided in the original medical documentation/request for accommodation but is nearing expiration, and it is apparent/known that the employee still requires accommodation (e.g., employee temporarily accommodated with modified duty but impairment did not heal as expected and individual still has limitations affecting performance of job duties)
• When there is a change in an employee’s medical impairment, limitations, ability to perform job duties/meet standards, or employer’s ability to accommodate, etc. (e.g., employee accommodated with intermittent leave for chronic medical impairment is using substantially more leave than indicated in original medical documentation)
• When accommodations are being monitored for effectiveness and the employee indicates a need for a change in accommodation or that there is a change in medical impairment/limitations (e.g., when checking-in with an employee about equipment that was provided due to low vision, the employee notes that her vision loss has progressed and an alternative accommodation is needed)

When appropriate, can employers simply request confirmation that an accommodation is still needed, without requesting updated medical information?

Yes. Simply put, don’t ask for information that is not needed.

Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations - https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html


tl;dr They can ask if you still need the accommodation but they can't ask for updated medical information unless you are asking for new accommodations.

 

[Tessa120]

Reading through, so just make sure the doctor puts an expiration date or puts that there is no expiration date and the need is permanent, and unless the condition obviously changes a lot that prevents employers from insisting on more paperwork.

 

[commiecorvus]

Reading through, so just make sure the doctor puts an expiration date or puts that there is no expiration date and the need is permanent, and unless the condition obviously changes a lot that prevents employers from insisting on more paperwork.

Good point.
Though that is only if your condition is something 'not visible'.
If you have deaf, blind, are a person with AS, using a wheelchair, etc. they don't get to play that bullshit.
Your condition has visibly not changed and they don't get to ask about it.

 

[TheKingRed]

With the new changes coming to store front ends, Anyone know with this new work model... what are they going to do with people with disabilities? I know 2 stores with someone with a disability watching SCO & they do an excellent job.

 

[commiecorvus]

Whatever they 'do' with people with disabilities it will have to meet the standards of the ADA.

 

[Tessa120]

And that's why this thread is needed and why anyone with a chronic condition needs to read it (even if they don't consider themselves disabled, because they might be legally disabled). Most companies bet on workers not knowing their legal rights and make decisions based on what is easy and profitable, not what meets the legal definition of reasonable accommodations.

 

[Hardlinesmaster]

And that's why this thread is needed and why anyone with a chronic condition needs to read it (even if they don't consider themselves disabled, because they might be legally disabled). Most companies bet on workers not knowing their legal rights and make decisions based on what is easy and profitable, not what meets the legal definition of reasonable accommodations.

So true!

 

[WalksforMiles]

I’m pretty sure my store wouldn’t give a damn about accommodations for a person with disabilities.

They’d just find a way to get rid of them.
They don’t give a damn about able bodied people as it is.

 

[Tessa120]

I’m pretty sure my store wouldn’t give a damn about accommodations for a person with disabilities.

They’d just find a way to get rid of them.
They don’t give a damn about able bodied people as it is.

And again, that's why this thread is needed. Reasonable accommodations requests are refused or ignored with no alternates offered and then the person gets corrective action on behaviors stemming from disability symptoms, that's when the educated employee starts calling the EEOC (and if fired, a disability lawyer that works on contingency).

Edit: If the harassment is bad enough, the lawyer before getting fired.

 

[WalksforMiles]

And again, that's why this thread is needed. Reasonable accommodations requests are refused or ignored with no alternates offered and then the person gets corrective action on behaviors stemming from disability symptoms, that's when the educated employee starts calling the EEOC (and if fired, a disability lawyer that works on contingency).

Edit: If the harassment is bad enough, the lawyer before getting fired.

Oh! And there’s the fear of retaliation if one were to speak out.

But yeah, you’re absolutely right Tessa!

 

[Hometransition]

So true!

I’m sure that this has been in played for a long time but why is it in the spotlight now?? I have worked for target for awhile and never been asked about this before and I have had FMLA paperwork filled out for just as long.

 

[Tessa120]

My guess is there is someone or multiple someones on this forum that are experiencing problems. A lot of people are reporting that there are orders from the higher ups to performance out long time TMs with disabilities because they can't be the "everything" expert Target wants due to a limitation (like someone with autism be non-stop engaging with guests despite hired for a normally out of sight job, someone with lift limitations expected to unload and backstock heavy items despite hired for sales floor or cashier, someone with diabetes needing time to check and correct blood sugar, which means time away from duties).

 

[Overadecade]

I'm going to put this here, instead of opening a new thread, but something to be aware of regarding accidents at work.

I have no idea how widespread this is, but was informed it was passed on from a "business partner" and was mandatory at stores that had more than a couple of TM incidents last year.

There is now a requirement (at impacted stores) that if a TM is injured, a coaching, or if possible, corrective action must be issued in conjunction, under the guise of "TMs need to be held accountable for working safe."

In practice, having documentation like this tied to your injury means a very good chance your work comp claim will be shot down.

Feel free to message if you have questions.

 

[Overadecade]

I got injured at work, something heavy fell on me. Those options was part of a check box list, one if it were a lack of training or another if the TM did not follow safety standards. However I also found that they pull the camera footage for every reported injury, so that would work in the TM's favor a lot of time.

That's always been there, but this is a separate form emailed out to leaders, that gets forwarded on to a business partner. Leaders were informed that at bare minimum a coaching must be delivered, because there was always something the TM could have done to prevent the injury. Which is patently ridiculous, especially with how filthy and out of control the offstage areas are in most stores going through modernization, and with the lack of real ownership of anything.
And the camera footage only helps the employee if they pull and save it. In my case, they waited until after the "save period" for the footage (and the witness quitting,) and then submitted a challenge to my claim. Or, in the case of slipping and falling in a mess, with that coaching on file, they have grounds to say you created the mess, or didn't clean it up, etc. It's disgustingly unethical.

 

[Fyi]

I just wanted to point out that there’s a thread in the leadership forum about a person with ZERO hr background being hired as an etl-hr, I forgot that this company does this all the time.

What company hires HRs with zero background in HR? And we wonder why there’s so many illegal situations happening all over stores...

 

[Tessa120]

I just wanted to point out that there’s a thread in the leadership forum about a person with ZERO hr background being hired as an etl-hr, I forgot that this company does this all the time.

What company hires HRs with zero background in HR? And we wonder why there’s so many illegal situations happening all over stores...

Woah. Please don't turn this into a bitch thread, please keep it informational about legal protections for the temp/permanent disabled and how to know when your rights are being violated and what to do about it. Warning of official policy to mandate injury write ups might be skirting on the edge of the topic but still informational for when disabling injuries happen. Discussion of HR qualifications or lack thereof does not add further information on rights or legalities/violation of and makes it harder to wade through the number of posts when someone new needs to learn their rights. Thank you. Commie please delete if this post is too much clutter.

 

[Fyi]

@Tessa120 the point was to show people that don’t believe there is a problem that of course there’s going to be issues when the company hires people with zero HR experience to handle ADA laws.

 

[Overadecade]

@Tessa120 the point was to show people that don’t believe there is a problem that of course there’s going to be issues when the company hires people with zero HR experience to handle ADA laws.

Can go either way, with some people in HR with no experience being SO afraid of ADA consequences that they allow someone with minor issues to get away with screaming bigoted obscenities at guests and team members, too. I've seen it.
So, it's kind of a moot point.

 

[commiecorvus]

Can go either way, with some people in HR with no experience being SO afraid of ADA consequences that they allow someone with minor issues to get away with screaming bigoted obscenities at guests and team members, too. I've seen it.
So, it's kind of a moot point.

The chances of that situation, I'm guessing a TM who has Tourette Syndrome, are pretty slim compared to a HR with no experience siding with the company and screwing over the TM.
It would be easy to give the TM with TS accommodations that don't include working with guests and training fellow TM to understand why the tics and shouts happen.
We have placed a number of clients with TS in such work places with no problems.

 

[Overadecade]

The chances of that situation, I'm guessing a TM who has Tourette Syndrome, are pretty slim compared to a HR with no experience siding with the company and screwing over the TM.
It would be easy to give the TM with TS accommodations that don't include working with guests and training fellow TM to understand why the tics and shouts happen.
We have placed a number of clients with TS in such work places with no problems.

Sorry for not being clear; didn't want to out the person in the situation.
But, we did have a guest facing TM who didn't have TS or anything like that, but did have mobility issues, who would routinely say horrific things to guests and TMs, and an HR too afraid of a lawsuit to say anything even though the issues were completely unrelated.

In my experience, the HRs simply defer to the BP who makes the majority of the decisions, anyways.
Interestingly, this new op model has been the first time in a long time (family history of Target employees) that the company has flagrantly been willing to fire people protected under the ADA, which makes me believe it was intentionally built into the model.

 

[Fluttervale]

The chances of that situation, I'm guessing a TM who has Tourette Syndrome, are pretty slim compared to a HR with no experience siding with the company and screwing over the TM.
It would be easy to give the TM with TS accommodations that don't include working with guests and training fellow TM to understand why the tics and shouts happen.
We have placed a number of clients with TS in such work places with no problems.

In my personal experience it is very rarely someone with a disability that includes screaming or swearing. It is usually someone with an unrelated disease that decides that they can't be fired no matter how horrid they are because having an unrelated disability "protects" them. Like, no, your mild to severe chronic plaque psoriasis is not what got you fired, it's the being a crazy bitch that got you fired.