Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A former Bank of America employee is suing the bank, saying he faced discrimination because his right hand, arm and leg were disabled in a car accident and he was told accommodation "wouldn't be fair to people with two hands."
For three years, Daniel Herrmann, 38, worked in customer service for Merrill Lynch and then Bank of America after BoA acquired Merrill Lynch in January 2010. He said he was fired on Sept. 20, 2010 for being one to two minutes late from his lunch break due to the fact that it took him longer to walk from the lunch room because of a limp.
"Around that time, he began to receive warnings for returning late from lunch break. He claims his limp caused him to walk more slowly from the lunchroom on a different floor in the building if the closest lunchroom was fully occupied, the suit states.
As he continued to ask for accommodations, he eventually received six warnings for being seconds or minutes late from his lunch break and was eventually fired."
As a former supervisor (before I retired) I can say that most employees exaggerate the amount of time they're late. If he has a disability that makes him walk slowly, he should leave the lunchroom earlier in order to get back to his office on time.
As a former supervisor (before I retired) I can say that most employees minimize the amount of time they're late. If he has a disability that makes him walk slowly, he should leave the lunchroom earlier in order to get back to his office on time.
If he has a disability that makes him walk slowly, he should leave the lunchroom earlier in order to get back to his office on time.
I've worked in places where I'd occasionally return from lunch a couple minutes late and I never heard a complaint from a manager about it.
And I'm not disabled.
5+ minutes late? Without a good excuse that is indeed ridiculous. However, 1-2 minutes late? I just can't say the same, especially if we're talking about an older/disabled person who moves a little slower than others.
5+ minutes late? Without a good excuse that is indeed ridiculous. However, 1-2 minutes late? I just can't say the same, especially if we're talking about an older/disabled person who moves a little slower than others.
I've learned that, when an employee says he's 1-2 minutes late often, he's really 5-10 minutes late often.
I agree, totally, with making accommodations, within reason, for disabled employees. But allowing them to be late often isnt fair to others.
I had a serious stroke in 2006 and had take short-term disability for six months. When I returned to work, it was difficult for me to get dressed in the AM (I had to be at work at 6:30 AM) and to drive to work (my right leg still gets tired when driving) and to walk from the parking garage to the office (a 10-minute walk for a non-handicapped person). But I managed to arrive at work on time and even early most days. I also brought my lunch so I could eat in my office and not have to worry about being late coming back to work.
So, while I empathize with the disabled (still being disabled myself), I also think the disabled have an obligation to not take advantage of their disabilities.
Why is it the employer who is solely charged with the responsibility of "making accommodations"? If the worker knows they will need more time to get back to their work station, shouldn't they allow for the extra time by leaving a bit early? Would it be possible to eat at their work station to avoid the extra travel? Both parties must make compromises in a fair and just world. Instead, this guy will probably get a huge settlement, and the cost will be passed down to the consumer, or possibly taken away from potential raises in the future for current employees.
Also, he did take this to EEOC who after an investigation decided not take action on behalf of the people of the united states, but instead issued him a right to sue letter that allows him to go after tthe employer on their own. I find that EEOC issues these when the evidence doesn;t really support thr claim, the facts are so muddled they can;t figure it out, there is some question as to if the person or company is covered under the law, the claim is more about employee/employer actions and not decrimination, or one or both of the parties are so disagreable they want them out of their hair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
