It's all in the head?

[MarxSchmarx]

I recently had a colleague who was diagnosed with a psychological ailment and s/he requires accommodation at our workplace.

Unfortunately our boss is less than sympathetic. S/he says "if you're afraid of heights, don't fly" :rolleyes: Still, the boss thinks the colleague got shafted by a BS shrink, so the animosity isn't against my co-worker so much as its against the shrink who demanded our colleague be accommodated.

This pisses the shit out of me. If s/he had been diagnosed with anything below the neck, the boss would have bent over backward to make sure accommodations were made. But because of the nature of the diagnosis, my boss is going to make my colleague proceed as if nothing happened, but nor is s/he going to make accommodations.

To be fair, my boss wants my colleague to succeed very much, and has decided to see where these matters go in the interest of fairness to everyone else. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how this would be different if my colleague had been a paraplegic instead of something that a psychologist could diagnoes. Thoughts?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Well that's the very problem isn't it; these conditions do exist in the mind, and hence are more difficult to prove, than say, being a paraplegic.

Also, where should the line be drawn in what causes a mental disorder? For example, in England a football stadium collapsed killing dozens. Whilst television channels did not broadcast pictures of the actual victims, they did depict bodies being covered up. Now, the families of those victims attempted to sue the broadcaster for causing their mental disorders (post traumatic stress disorder). They argued that the slow, drawn out manner in which the news was reported caused their mental illnesses. Would it be fair to blame the broadcaster?

Another case involved a woman whom suffered pure mental harm resulting from learning that a policeman had incorrectly recorded her as driving under the influence. The court held that a person of 'normal fortitude' would not have suffered mental harm by such an act, and that it was impossible to foresee mental harm as a result of that act...

However, when you know someone is more mentally fragile, it is expected that you should owe them a greater duty of care...

And of course, you have to take into account the circumstances of the cases - actually seeing a loved one die, is far different to being told by a policeman.

However, if the person employs someone who subsequently becomes, for example, brain damaged...you can't expect the person to continue employing that person via the rule of frustration.

Yet, if the person merely has some sort of phobia, which doesn't interfere with their job and which the employer can take reasonable and not exhaustive means to 'set right' then it would be unfair to fire them based on that. I am not sure of the exact nature of your employment...but if someone had a fear of flying and worked as a air hostess or a pilot then its an inherent requirement in the job that you don't actually fear flying...;)

I remember a case where a man whom was was schizophrenic was employed as a post man. His employers subsequently learned of his illness and fired him. The man argued that the employers could have provided him with full time security guard to make sure that he did not attack anyone...obviously that is too great a hardship which an employer should have to take to accommodate for the mental illnesses of an employee.

Sorry for that long and distantly connected response, but it is an interesting area and one which has quite a bit of relevance to workers. :D