Taking FMLA in a rage over RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

The OP has said that the employer denied the RA. Whether it was the exact wrong move or not depends on the timing, which is less clear. OP: did they deny the RA before or after you notified them that you'd be going out on FMLA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

The OP has said that the employer denied the RA. Whether it was the exact wrong move or not depends on the timing, which is less clear. OP: did they deny the RA before or after you notified them that you'd be going out on FMLA?

She said she received a verbal denial but had not received a formal denial letter. She also did not know she could appeal the decision. It sounds like she decided to go out on leave after the verbal denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

These all sound good, but do you really think most workplaces will do this? Particularly the ones that tend to say "come in or leave?" Ha. (Not OP.)

This approach may be worth a shot OP, but just in case I would use all that rage you have to find another job that is actually remote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

These all sound good, but do you really think most workplaces will do this? Particularly the ones that tend to say "come in or leave?" Ha. (Not OP.)

This approach may be worth a shot OP, but just in case I would use all that rage you have to find another job that is actually remote.

My employer would consider all of those reasonable accommodations, yes.

But I agree that OP really just needs to find a truly remote position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you be more specific about your illness? The people I've known who've had sepsis recovered pretty quickly once treated.

And I know someone who was in the hospital for almost a year and had about 15 surgeries, was given 48 hours to live twice.

NP. Sure. But that isn't someone whose hospitalization was over months ago and then wanted to work from home.

[Anonymous]

Op, did you move? I know so many people that moved and requested reasonable accommodation
but the real reason was that they were no longer in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

But those weren't her only two options. You listed several other things that would have enabled her to keep working in the interim that were not FT WFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

But those weren't her only two options. You listed several other things that would have enabled her to keep working in the interim that were not FT WFH.

Right, but in the interactive process that is supposed to happen under ADA, it is not OP’s job exclusively to suggest those. The employer could also have offered them as a counter to her request for WFH.

That she isn’t mentioning what they countered with? it’s safe to guess that they countered with nothing.

If so this organization really is a bit of an outlier—even big notorious corporate terrible employers have an obligation and most of them at least facially discharge it with respect to white-collar employees (which I am assuming OP is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

But those weren't her only two options. You listed several other things that would have enabled her to keep working in the interim that were not FT WFH.

Right, but in the interactive process that is supposed to happen under ADA, it is not OP’s job exclusively to suggest those. The employer could also have offered them as a counter to her request for WFH.

That she isn’t mentioning what they countered with? it’s safe to guess that they countered with nothing.

If so this organization really is a bit of an outlier—even big notorious corporate terrible employers have an obligation and most of them at least facially discharge it with respect to white-collar employees (which I am assuming OP is).

I think we might be talking past each other here. I am not defending this organization.

What I am saying is that, for the reasons you cite, and the somewhat odd fact that OP was able to get FMLA through and formally documented yet has no written response or denial to her RA claim, that OP likely did not go about this in the best way possible if her goal was to get a permanent WFH arrangement (right or wrong).

[Anonymous]

I think maybe people could be a little sympathetic to the OP after a summer of multiple hospitalizations and sepsis. That must have been pretty traumatic. Maybe she’s exaggerating the risk of going to the office, maybe she just doesn’t want to go back - I don’t think we have enough info to know- but I’d think her workplace could have at least given her some WFH before requiring her to come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.

And do what in between? Stay home not being paid for not working? She was basically forced to take FMLA, especially if she's using donated leave.

This. Her options were probably “come in or take protected leave.”

Are there other accommodations that could help you work, OP? More bathroom breaks (UTIs are common paths to sepsis)? PPE (wounds are common paths to sepsis)? An office instead of an open workspace (to prevent viral infections)? Flex hours (to accommodate more sleep or a better commuting situation)? Time off to go to the doctor? Breaks during the day to rest? What other solutions are available?

But those weren't her only two options. You listed several other things that would have enabled her to keep working in the interim that were not FT WFH.

Right, but in the interactive process that is supposed to happen under ADA, it is not OP’s job exclusively to suggest those. The employer could also have offered them as a counter to her request for WFH.

That she isn’t mentioning what they countered with? it’s safe to guess that they countered with nothing.

If so this organization really is a bit of an outlier—even big notorious corporate terrible employers have an obligation and most of them at least facially discharge it with respect to white-collar employees (which I am assuming OP is).

I think we might be talking past each other here. I am not defending this organization.

What I am saying is that, for the reasons you cite, and the somewhat odd fact that OP was able to get FMLA through and formally documented yet has no written response or denial to her RA claim, that OP likely did not go about this in the best way possible if her goal was to get a permanent WFH arrangement (right or wrong).

I wonder whether this org contracted out its RA determinations. That is what ours did—small enough that management was trying to depersonalize the determinations about COVID risk. The results included this kind of situation, where the HR employees processing FMLA did it quickly and an RA request might still be sitting out.

I’m just saying: this may not all be down to OP’s strategy or manner of approach.

[Anonymous]

Op here. I’ll try to address some of the questions.

-I work for a very large organization

-I actually WAS trying to comply with the RTO requirements, and ended up back in the hospital at the end of august because of it. I would go in to the office by drugging myself up and then sit there, trying to make an appearance. I never made it more than 2-4 hours before I became too ill to be at work. I couldn’t even drive myself there and back and was relying on Ubers.

-I already had an intermittent FMLA in place earlier this summer because of how much time I’ve been out

-my employer was entirely unwilling to work with me on any of this-they wouldn’t let me work remotely when sick (even though we allow 1 day a week of remote even under the new rules). I was completely out of sick time and burning vacation to cover my absences, but the rule is that vacation time must be approved in advance and I was using it day by day to cover my illness. I really was between a rock and a hard place and they were making it impossible for me to comply.

-when I was informed verbally that no WFH would be approved as part of the reasonable accommodation process, I got documentation for a continuous FMLA.

-the headline of my post is overly provocative and I wish I could change it. I shouldn’t have titled this post the way I did.

[Anonymous]

Why do you have to drug yourself up to go to the office? Are you well enough to be working at all? Does your employer offer LTD?