Employment Law
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30110 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
10
SEPTEMBER 2015
NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
Employment Law
Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review
employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.
Disability
Employer not required to tolerate hysterics
Eileen Felix was a customer service representative at
the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles, which was
part of the Department of Transportation.
Felix sometimes had problems with anxiety.
In 2012, she had a panic attack after her cash
drawer was short ten dollars. However, aside from that
incident, Felix generally managed her anxiety with
medication and breathing exercises. When she felt a
panic attack coming on, Felix was permitted to take
a break, do breathing exercises, take medication and
return when her anxiety subsided.
In April 2013, after Felix had obtained permis-
sion to go to the restroom because of an impending
panic attack, she was found lying on the oor behind
a work counter. There were marks and scratches on
both wrists, and a couple of cuts that were bleeding
slightly. Most of her speech was purportedly unintelli-
gible. When Felix rolled over on her back, she allegedly
kicked her legs like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Eventually, paramedics were able to calm her down.
The next day, the human resources director required
Felix to undergo a mental health examination.
In May, Felix was evaluated by a psychologist who
concluded that she was at increased risk for potentially
violent behavior toward herself and others. He also
predicted future episodes of crying, verbal threats,
irrational outbursts and suicidal threats.
In June, her own doctor sent in a report that listed
a return to work date of July 15 with no restrictions.
After she was discharged a week later, Felix led
a suit claiming a violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
The DOT led a motion for summary judgment.
District Judge William Griesbach acknowledged
that Felix had not directly threatened her co-workers,
and that the only physical harm she had caused was
to herself. However, he ruled that hysterical screaming
in front of co-workers and members of the public was
not something an employer had to tolerate or accom-
modate. He ruled that Felix had been red because
the DOT thought she was unt for duty and feared
for her safety, as well as the safety and well-being of
her co-employees and the public.
Felix argued that the DOT was simply wrong about
her tness for duty, and that she was entitled to a trial
to prove it.
EMPLOYER WINS ➔ However, Judge Gries-
bach said that courts did not sit as a kind of “super-
personnel department” to weigh the prudence of
employment decisions that had been made by em-
ployers, just because there was a suit claiming some
kind of employment discrimination.
He stated that Felix had offered no evidence sug-
gesting that the DOT was not truly convinced that she
was unt for duty as a result of her outburst in April
2013, and that the real reason it red her was because
of a disability.
Judge Griesbach granted summary judgment in
favor of the DOT.
[Felix v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
No. 13-CV-1188, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, No. 13-CV-1188, 04/17/2015].
Disability
Lateral transfer doesn’t amount
to adverse employment action
In 2002, Lisa Hensley began working as a full-time
jailer at the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention
Center shortly after she graduated from college. A year
later, she was promoted to supervisor.
In 2005, Hensley became one of only ve sergeants
at the detention center.
The next year, she was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis.
In 2008, she became a “swing shift sergeant,” and her
hours were from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. Her title reected
her hours, which “split” the rst and second shift.
When she began receiving intravenous infusions one
Friday each month, she was granted the accommoda-
tion of not being scheduled for work on those days.
In 2010, the director asked all of the sergeants to
submit their preferences for what shifts they wished to
work. Hensley requested the “second shift,” which was
from 3:45 p.m. until midnight. Her second choice was
to stay in the swing shift.
In a meeting with the director, Hensley provided
documentation from her doctor that recommended it
was best for her to stay on her current work schedule. In
addition, she told the director that she occasionally had
To continue reading
Request your trial