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.
He was terminated for "becoming enraged and about to get violent". Apparently, his reaction to this birthday party was over the top and he became quite confrontational over it which was intimidating to his coworkers.
So much for the meek little image of a guy sitting in his car hyperventilating. I think the jury got the verdict wrong.
Did you actually read the article? The man told his employer he didn't want a party, was blamed for his panic attack, confronted by the managers in front of other employees, and denied the opportunity to using coping mechanisms like "hugging himself." Then he was sent home and fired, supposedly because other employees were afraid of him hugging himself. The other employees are insensitive morons and the company was lucky the jury didn't hit them up with a much bigger award.
Quote:
Berling spoke to the birthday celebration organizer about his request not to have a party, but “the person who was responsible for the birthday parties who he talked to flat-out forgot about his request”.As a result, the company hosted the celebration, at which Berling suffered a panic attack.
According to Bucher, Berling went to his car, practiced breathing techniques, ate his lunch and then texted his manager, upset his request had been ignored.
Quote:
The next day, according to Berling’s lawsuit, Berling was “confronted and criticized” for his reaction.
“According to my client, [his managers] started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other co-workers’ joy,” Bucher told Link NKY.
According to the lawsuit, “this confrontation triggered another panic attack”.
Amid this attack, Bucher said, co-workers asked Berling to stop using coping mechanisms including “hugging himself”. When he did not, the staff members walked out.
Bucher said: “The way [they] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent.”
Berling’s lawsuit said: “At the conclusion of this meeting and because plaintiff had a panic attack, plaintiff was sent home from work for the remainder of 8 and 9 August.”
I read the article but I am also very aware that the press can go far afield in their desire to slant the news to get the desired amount of public outrage. I also notice that the entire article only gave the subject's version and as he saw it, being as how he is mentally unstable, he might be seeing things differently than a mentally normal person might see it. I suspect that none of us reading the news report has the slightest clue about what happened or why the guy was fired.
If he did indeed threaten violence, then the company was right to fire him. They only have to make a reasonable accommodating to a handicap, not change the lives of everyone around them, nor put anyone else in danger.
Because the subject's version of what the company did was on the irrational side, then it makes me wonder how much truth and how much slant the subject is actually giving about the whole situation.
Coming back to add that this fellow has just made it more difficult for the mentally handicapped to find a decent job. Who wants to hire someone who insists that everyone has to behave as he dictates and then sues if he is unhappy or can't fit himself in to the business?
it's one thing to be willing to make reasonable accommodation. It is entirely different to have to live every second of the business day in fear of being sued because you somehow offend a sensitive employee. by maybe doing something that mentally more normal people aren't bothered by..
I read the article but I am also very aware that the press can go far afield in their desire to slant the news to get the desired amount of public outrage. I also notice that the entire article only gave the subject's version and as he saw it, being as how he is mentally unstable, he might be seeing things differently than a mentally normal person might see it. I suspect that none of us reading the news report has the slightest clue about what happened or why the guy was fired.
If he did indeed threaten violence, then the company was right to fire him. They only have to make a reasonable accommodating to a handicap, not change the lives of everyone around them, nor put anyone else in danger.
Because the subject's version of what the company did was on the irrational side, then it makes me wonder how much truth and how much slant the subject is actually giving about the whole situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
Coming back to add that this fellow has just made it more difficult for the mentally handicapped to find a decent job. Who wants to hire someone who insists that everyone has to behave as he dictates and then sues if he is unhappy or can't fit himself in to the business?
it's one thing to be willing to make reasonable accommodation. It is entirely different to have to live every second of the business day in fear of being sued because you somehow offend a sensitive employee. by maybe doing something that mentally more normal people aren't bothered by..
Again, we weren't there to see any of it. We didn't hear the evidence. We don't know exactly what happened, or really ANYTHING other than the news article that could be slanted the opposite of what you think. 12 people, just like you, me, and the plaintiff, all voted to give this guy the relief he asked for after hearing THE WHOLE STORY. Why question their judgement?
He wasn't "trying to change the lives of everyone around him". He just didn't want a party in his honor. That's not too much to ask. Then he tried to avoid the situation by going to his car, a reasonable solution. Not wanting to be the center of attention is not that hard to understand. This is classic social anxiety. It's like a more severe version of fear of public speaking. Last time I checked, job requirements typically don't include being forced to attend a party that you specifically asked to not be thrown for you. Being yelled at and fired for a medical condition is classic discrimination.
I read the article but I am also very aware that the press can go far afield in their desire to slant the news to get the desired amount of public outrage. I also notice that the entire article only gave the subject's version and as he saw it, being as how he is mentally unstable, he might be seeing things differently than a mentally normal person might see it. I suspect that none of us reading the news report has the slightest clue about what happened or why the guy was fired.
You realize it's not just a news story ... this was actually a case in a court of law, right? Both sides were heard. The reason that only his side was presented in the story was because the company is slinking away with their tail between their legs and saying "no comment."
Coming back to add that this fellow has just made it more difficult for the mentally handicapped to find a decent job. Who wants to hire someone who insists that everyone has to behave as he dictates and then sues if he is unhappy or can't fit himself in to the business?
it's one thing to be willing to make reasonable accommodation. It is entirely different to have to live every second of the business day in fear of being sued because you somehow offend a sensitive employee. by maybe doing something that mentally more normal people aren't bothered by..
Asking not to have a birthday party is a reasonable accommodation. The person who ought to be fired is the one who "couldn't remember" not to do it.
When I read between the lines here, I see an office full of petty people who are disgruntled because someone isn't participating in their social activities, and retaliated by having a childish temper tantrum because they couldn't get their own way.
Again, we weren't there to see any of it. We didn't hear the evidence. We don't know exactly what happened, or really ANYTHING other than the news article that could be slanted the opposite of what you think. 12 people, just like you, me, and the plaintiff, all voted to give this guy the relief he asked for after hearing THE WHOLE STORY. Why question their judgement?
He wasn't "trying to change the lives of everyone around him". He just didn't want a party in his honor. That's not too much to ask. Then he tried to avoid the situation by going to his car, a reasonable solution. Not wanting to be the center of attention is not that hard to understand. This is classic social anxiety. It's like a more severe version of fear of public speaking. Last time I checked, job requirements typically don't include being forced to attend a party that you specifically asked to not be thrown for you. Being yelled at and fired for a medical condition is classic discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ
Asking not to have a birthday party is a reasonable accommodation. The person who ought to be fired is the one who "couldn't remember" not to do it.
When I read between the lines here, I see an office full of petty people who are disgruntled because someone isn't participating in their social activities, and retaliated by having a childish temper tantrum because they couldn't get their own way.
whenever i have been in work groups that try to identify people by birthday, whether it is a party, or just listing people's names and circulating it, I always opt out, and explain that it is personal information that is not anyone's business. No one at work needs to know anything personal about me. it is a privacy violation.
i remember working at Human Resources in one job, and i got to read all the disciplinary actions that were processed. It was fascinating to read them. One employee objected when a co-worker had a "surprise" birthday celebration for them; he asked how the co-worker found out what his birthday was, because he (like me) kept that information personal and protected. The co-worker said they "called someone in the person's family" and got the date that way. The employee objected to that also as a violation of privacy. The person was disciplined rather severely.
Traditionally at my workplace, it would be announced that there was a party in some room for some occasion, but it was an individual choice whether or not to attend. There was food you could take back to your desk if you wanted to stay just a minute. When the new management came in, it was suddenly mandatory. Not only did you have to show up, everyone had to eat around a table like the "work family" we were supposed to be. If you opted out, it was frowned upon. I'm sure this is all part of the "team-building" that has infected every workplace.
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.
