NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 13, 2014 15:09:25 GMT -5
The dental hospital or the job applicant? gma.yahoo.com/woman-says-she-denied-job-due-peanut-allergy-172424191--abc-news-topstories.htmlI 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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 13, 2014 15:12:53 GMT -5
Yup, sorry. Her allergies preclude her from a fair amount of jobs. The whole society isn't going to revolve around her.
|
|
greeniis10
Well-Known Member
Joined: May 9, 2012 12:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,833
|
Post by greeniis10 on Aug 13, 2014 15:13:44 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Aug 13, 2014 15:17:33 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Aug 13, 2014 15:20:36 GMT -5
ME, I'm right. Ok, nothing else to contribute, just saw the thread title and really wanted to say that.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 13, 2014 15:22:39 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 15:26:08 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 13, 2014 15:27:40 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Aug 13, 2014 15:28:01 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 13, 2014 15:28:01 GMT -5
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
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Aug 13, 2014 15:28:55 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 13, 2014 15:32:47 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 13, 2014 15:32:55 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 13, 2014 15:34:46 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 13, 2014 15:34:53 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 13, 2014 15:44:35 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 17:59:28 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Aug 13, 2014 18:23:34 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 13, 2014 18:34:47 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Aug 13, 2014 18:40:51 GMT -5
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
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Aug 13, 2014 18:45:58 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Aug 13, 2014 18:55:35 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,752
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Aug 13, 2014 18:57:15 GMT -5
Next story we will be reading is that she is sueing them for not hiring her.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Aug 13, 2014 22:27:17 GMT -5
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
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 13, 2014 22:37:04 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 14, 2014 7:04:29 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Aug 14, 2014 7:53:35 GMT -5
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.htmland 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
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,752
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Aug 14, 2014 8:01:03 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 14, 2014 8:18:27 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 8:20:32 GMT -5
|
|