So who is right here?

[NastyWoman]

The dental hospital or the job applicant?

gma.yahoo.com/woman-says-she-denied-job-due-peanut-allergy-172424191--abc-news-topstories.html

I really can't see how the hospital could ensure a safe working environment for her? Ban all patients from eating peanuts/ peanut butter sandwiches before coming in?  I know all of you like me brush your teeth before seeing the dentist, but what about the kids who may have PB on their hands and end up touching everything in sight?

Discuss 

[zibazinski]

Yup, sorry. Her allergies preclude her from a fair amount of jobs. The whole society isn't going to revolve around her. 

[greeniis10]

I don't have a peanut allergy (or any type of severe allergy) so pardon me if this is a silly question, but was it necessary for her to disclose that in the interview?  I just don't see why she decided to do that.  She's aware, she's prepared (carries the epi-pen) and has been fine at other jobs, right?

[Peace Of Mind]

What did the job entail?  Was she working with peanuts or the like in any way?  If not - it doesn't make sense unless she claimed she couldn't be in the same room with somebody who had peanut breath.    If I felt the liability was going to be high I would not have hired her either.  Even worse - if I thought she was going to be out sick constantly or use her allergy as an excuse to not do her job I'd not hire her.  People are a PITA enough to deal with so you don't want to hire a high maintenance employee like that.

The article didn't really tell much about what her job actually would be or how peanuts would be an issue other than the nausea part of it and she said she has an epi pen.   

[Chocolate Lover]

ME, I'm right.


Ok, nothing else to contribute, just saw the thread title and really wanted to say that.

[Angel!]

It was really stupid of her to disclose that.  I'm not sure if food allergy would be protected, but it sounds like lawyers aren't really sure either.

I also want to point out the nausea is probably more of a psychological response than physical.  The smell of chocolate  or anything like cheetos, flavored doritos, etc makes me sick sometimes.  But I just associate those smells with things that will make me really sick or kill me, so the smell alone makes me want to get the hell away.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 15:13:44 GMT -5 greeniis10 said:

I don't have a peanut allergy (or any type of severe allergy) so pardon me if this is a silly question, but was it necessary for her to disclose that in the interview?  I just don't see why she decided to do that.  She's aware, she's prepared (carries the epi-pen) and has been fine at other jobs, right?

In Canada she would not have had to disclose and if she got hired they would have had to accommodate her disability unless it precluded her from doing "essential" job duties. Ya, a whole lot of companies are in the middle of redoing job descriptions to specify essential duties that can't get reassigned to a coworker.

[imawino]

Aug 13, 2014 15:22:39 GMT -5 Angel! said:

It was really stupid of her to disclose that.  I'm not sure if food allergy would be protected, but it sounds like lawyers aren't really sure either.

I also want to point out the nausea is probably more of a psychological response than physical.  The smell of chocolate  or anything like cheetos, flavored doritos, etc makes me sick sometimes.  But I just associate those smells with things that will make me really sick or kill me, so the smell alone makes me want to get the hell away.

I thought the same thing about the nausea. I mean, if the physical reaction she gets from peanuts is hives and throat swelling the nausea would seem to be just a psychological reaction.

And I don't get why she was disclosing that, unless it was specifically to ask for some sort of accommodation? She claims she doesn't need one but it doesn't make sense why she would have brought it up then. 

[Chocolate Lover]

Aug 13, 2014 15:22:39 GMT -5 Angel! said:

It was really stupid of her to disclose that.  I'm not sure if food allergy would be protected, but it sounds like lawyers aren't really sure either.

I also want to point out the nausea is probably more of a psychological response than physical.  The smell of chocolate  or anything like cheetos, flavored doritos, etc makes me sick sometimes.  But I just associate those smells with things that will make me really sick or kill me, so the smell alone makes me want to get the hell away.

I have that reaction to shellfish, except I start to react, I'll get itchy and stuff and then realize what I'm doing. I had to unlearn that behavior, because Mom's knee jerk reaction when I was a kid was to banish me from the room entirely if she was doing something with shrimp.

[Tiny]

I know all of you like me brush your teeth before seeing the dentist, but what about the kids who may have PB on their hands and end up touching everything in sight?

OMG!! how can she do ANYTHING at all outside her home?  think of all the doorknobs, drawpulls, table tops, just about everything she would touch on a daily basis that MIGHT have been touched by someone who ate peanuts or had some peanut residue on their hands even without working in an office!!! ?? OMG!!!     <-- that's 100% sarcasm, just in case.


I think the job applicate is in the right BASED on the info from the article.   She'd be working in an 'administrative' type job and she's worked in health care as a secretary before this - so she's use to an office with people coming and going.   She sounds like she's got a good handle on coping with her allergy.   

I don't see why her allergy is a problem (again based on the article).

[hurley1980]

I think the hospital should reconsider. It doesn't sound like it would have been a problem, but I also agree she should have kept her mouth shut about it.

[Tiny]

Maybe she disclosed it as a 'courtesy' so her fellow employees could be made aware of it?  Alternatively, I guess on her first day of work she could say something like "Hi! I'm new.  I've got a severe peanut allergy.  Could you please refrain from bringing peanuts/stuff containing peanuts to the office OR please  be understanding when I  politely decline to eat or touch food  you bring to the office to share with everyone."   

Food pushers are the worst....   

[973beachbum]

Kameela Coleman said she was scheduled to start her job working as scheduling coordinator at a dental outpatient clinic at Boston Children's Hospital this week. However, before she started the job, she disclosed that she had a peanut allergy, which could result in throat swelling and hives.

This is from the article in the OP.  I have no idea why this would involve her doing anything that would put her in contact with someone else's mouth.  My only thought is that she wanted her own phone so she knew it was clean and no one coughed up that day's PB&J onto the phone.

That isn't really that big a request IMO.  I would have told them that after I was working there though and had wet wiped the whole place down.

[imawino]

She also mentions a couple times that she would just "leave the area" if someone was eating peanuts too close. For how long exactly?   I'm sorry, but if an applicant told me in an interview that she might just routinely be walking away from her work for an indeterminate amount of time, I would likely reconsider hiring that applicant as well.  Partially because it meant there might be times when she wasn't doing what I was paying her for and partially because I would think that would be a really stupid thing for her to be telling me in an interview.   

[ArchietheDragon]

One would think a hospital would be able to determine whether or not it was safe for her to work there or not.




But you never can tell. 

[973beachbum]

I just skimmed the article the first time.   I read it better and it said she had to move away from someone during the interview process because they were eating peanuts so I don't think she went in there with the thought to tell them about it.

And she said she moves away because she gets nauseous.  I cant imagine hanging around either if I am starting to feel like I am going to throw up.

The part that stuck out to me is she worked for another hospital for 13 years and quit them because this one offered her a job.  Not hiring her is one thing stringing her along until she quits the job she has is another.

[Deleted]

So do you guys want to pay her disability because of her disability?  Either the hospital accommodates her, or society will "have" to.

It's not always easy or inexpensive to accommodate people. Think of buildings that have no handicapped-accessible bathroom facilities. Do they get to just say, "Well, sorry! You can't work here"?

I have my own bias. I got fired in the 1970s (well, let go when I had already been renewed) because I was pregnant. It was legitimately hard for a low-paying private school to find a qualified substitute. 

[Malarky]

Brad 3 hours ago 3 67
The part this story is failing to tell is the fact that this particular dentist, which I'm very familiar with, uses an organic peanut shell based polish for all their teeth cleaning. I was denied an appointment with this dentist for the very same reason as they have a rigorous screening application before you can schedule an appointment. I've seen the results of this cleaning technique and I must say I'm very disappointed that I have an allergy because the results are unbelievable.
Expand Replies (12) Reply


This is from the comments section.

This is the reason she can't have the job.

I'd say the hospital is right.

[ArchietheDragon]

Aug 13, 2014 18:23:34 GMT -5 Malarky said:

Brad 3 hours ago 3 67
The part this story is failing to tell is the fact that this particular dentist, which I'm very familiar with, uses an organic peanut shell based polish for all their teeth cleaning. I was denied an appointment with this dentist for the very same reason as they have a rigorous screening application before you can schedule an appointment. I've seen the results of this cleaning technique and I must say I'm very disappointed that I have an allergy because the results are unbelievable.
Expand Replies (12) Reply


This is from the comments section.

This is the reason she can't have the job.

I'd say the hospital is right.

I would be wary to believe Brad from the comment section.      Google is showing nada.

[whoisjohngalt]

When I read such articles, I always start to wonder what kind of precedent this will set.

I would not be surprised if an "allergy" will be considered a disability in a near future and employees will be required to start accommodating it.

I think I've mentioned this before, but ever since I've had kids and have been meeting various families, it's almost impossible to find a family where someone didn't have some kind of allergy.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

Aug 13, 2014 15:44:35 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

I just skimmed the article the first time.   I read it better and it said she had to move away from someone during the interview process because they were eating peanuts so I don't think she went in there with the thought to tell them about it.

And she said she moves away because she gets nauseous.  I cant imagine hanging around either if I am starting to feel like I am going to throw up.

The part that stuck out to me is she worked for another hospital for 13 years and quit them because this one offered her a job.  Not hiring her is one thing stringing her along until she quits the job she has is another.

People eat in front of you at a job interview?  That seems really unprofessional.  I'm assuming it wasn't her so it must have been the interviewer? (who interviews someone while munching away?), a bystander (why the hell are they in the interview if they have nothing to add?), or another applicant? (who eats while interviewing?).

I'm thinking that the interview for a scheduler wouldn't be an all day thing so why would you be eating during it?  

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

In Canada she would not have had to disclose and if she got hired they would have had to accommodate her disability unless it precluded her from doing "essential" job duties. Ya, a whole lot of companies are in the middle of redoing job descriptions to specify essential duties that can't get reassigned to a coworker.

Since when in YOUR part of Canada did having a peanut allergy become classified as having a disability that has to be accommodated by the employer?

It (the peanut allergy) is a condition that might preclude you from certain professions (such as dental, food service, etc), but it's not a disability.

My brother has asthma, as well as 3 or 4 allergies - yet he chose a profession that doesn't interfere with his various symptoms. And NO, he doesn't consider them a disability and never has. He worked for the City Electrical Dept for 30 yrs and now does contract work.

I on the other hand, need accommodation for disabled parking, and access to be able to navigate freely without obstacles. If the place of employment doesn't have those facilities, should I expect them to revamp their entire operation to meet my individual needs?

[NoNamePerson]

Next story we will be reading is that she is sueing them for not hiring her.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

As the parent of kids with real, life-threatening, anaphylactic allergies I have to think there is more to this story than is reported.

Boston Children's Hospital has some of the best pediatric food allergists in the world on staff.  Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the hospital is unable to safely employ this woman.  Heck, my own kids have been in that hospital and didn't suffer reactions!!  I suspect there may have been one of those general "is there any physical condition that would prevent you from performing your job duties" kind of questions on the application and the woman answered truthfully.  Then, some rigid, overly cautious, and not fully-informed, HR admin deep-sixed the woman's application before thinking it all through.  

The article suggests that the applicant is being entirely reasonable and wants the job.  I didn't read between the lines that she's looking to collect disability or sue the hospital.  It simply sounds like an administrative screw-up and she got the media involved to try and get it resolved.  

[Tennesseer]

There are always two sides to these types of stories. I  would like to hear the hospital's postion before I offer an opinion.  Unfortunately, we will never know any time soon as it is now a legal matter. 

[milee]

Aug 13, 2014 18:55:35 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

In America - yes, most applicants/employees with those individual needs would expect an employer to revamp their entire operation to comply.  Unfortunately.  The law is not very specific; it requires an employer offer "reasonable accommodations."  Reasonable is open to interpretation, which gives employers the heebie jeebies since each year we see new regulations that cost thousands of dollars but are considered reasonable.  In addition, there are always attorneys and legal aid groups that are willing to represent "handicapped" (I'm using the quotes because many of the litigants are legitimately handicapped, but others are people who do not have a recognized handicap that are seeking to use the legal system to get their issue classified as such) free of charge.  But the employer does not get free legal aid to defend itself in such a suit, so if an employer is sued, they'll pay six figures or more in legal fees even if they do win the suit - employers are in deep doo doo even if the case is bogus.  The only way to avoid that risk is to avoid potentially problem employees but in a legally acceptable way.  And that's why you get employers who are eager to find other qualified applicants for jobs. 

So employers are understandably sometimes leery of hiring people who appear to have a need - or desire - for significant accommodations.  The employer knows it will be in a no-win situation.  Either spend the thousands of dollars providing whatever accommodation has been requested or spend thousands of dollars defending itself in a suit, no matter how frivolous the suit is.  IMHO, in some ways the ADA has hurt people with disabilities more than it is helped them and the "reasonable accommodation" language causes many employers to avoid the issue altogether. 

Edited to add: There's not enough info in the news story to tell which side is being reasonable. My response was to SL who asked if she should expect an employer to completely revamp operations in order to accommodate her individual needs.  I suspect there are other issues in the OP's example story. My response is more to describe how many small to mid sized employers view the situation. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Aug 13, 2014 18:57:15 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

Next story we will be reading is that she is sueing them for not hiring her.

Last month or so there was an article on Slate about an anti-abortion nurse suing Planned Parenthood (I think it is) for refusing to hire her. 

I'll try to find a link. 

www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html

and www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/25/religious-freedom-women-discrimination-hobby-lobby-exemption-obama-column/12987547/

both are by the same author. 

Sara Hellwege, a nurse-midwife in Tampa, Florida, is suing the Tampa Family Health Centers, because they did not give her a job she feels entitled to. Hellwege claims she is a victim of religious discrimination, saying TFHC didn't hire her because of her religious objections to contraception. But that is simply untrue.

TFHC is not demanding that Hellwege start using contraception or to start believing differently in her own private life. No, they refused to hire her because she broadcast her eagerness to use this position to foist her own religious views on unsuspecting patients, and to deprive them of their religious freedom to make their own choices by refusing to prescribe contraception for them.


And I'm NOT trying to turn this into an abortion/religious debate.  But it seems to me that employers have a right to hire people who can work within their mission statement and limit their risks.  Because if the job applicant in the OP dies due to an allergic reaction to something in the office, I would expect a lawsuit to follow. 

[NoNamePerson]

I'm so jaded that I think these people go apply for these jobs knowing they won't be hired so they can then sue. I think they are counting on big settlements so they don't have to work. Told you I was jaded. 

[zibazinski]

I'm jaded because we had a parent at our sister school expect the entire school to go peanut free so her darling could eat in the cafeteria with all the other children. Plenty of accomodations were made but that wasnt good enough for her. She sued and lost.

[Deleted]

The right to be accommodated and the corresponding duty of the employer and union are now well established in statute and case law. Accommodation is a fundamental and integral part of the right to equal treatment. The duty to accommodate means that the terms and conditions of the workplace, or the functions of a job, may have to be changed. The Code recognizes that an employer may have operating rules, policies and procedures that may be necessary for business reasons, or that there may be certain legal requirements such as health and safety legislation. There may also be collective agreements that set out the terms and conditions governing the workplace.

Accommodation with dignity is part of the broader principle that our society should be structured and designed for inclusiveness. This principle, which is sometimes referred to as integration, emphasizes barrier-free design and equal participation of persons with varying levels of ability. Integration is also much more cost-effective than building parallel service systems, although it is inevitable that there will be times when parallel services are the only option. Inclusive design and integration are also preferable to “modification of rules” or “barrier removal,” terms that, although popular, assume that the status quo (usually designed by able-bodied persons) simply needs an adjustment to render it acceptable. In fact, inclusive design may involve an entirely different approach. It is based on positive steps needed to ensure equal participation for those who have experienced historical disadvantage and exclusion from society’s benefits.[4] The right to equality can be breached by a failure to address needs related to disadvantage.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has observed:


[T]he principle that discrimination can accrue from a failure to take positive steps to ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public is widely accepted in the human rights field.[5]

www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-and-guidelines-disability-and-duty-accommodate