Irratible bowel syndrom
sjay
2 Posts
I would like to add another eliment to this question. We too have an employee with this condition. Although work hours have not been a problem, hygiene has! The employee had an "attack" while coming into work and decided to clean up in the public restroom where we lease space at a remote location. Needless to say there needed to be some additional clean up. There were obvious concerns for possible communicable disease so the Leasor requested a Dr.'s note which would state the employee did not have any such disease(s). I denied the request but as a result I would like to require that the employee NOT use the restroom in this situation and that he go home (nearby)and come back or make up his hours later. Suggestion on how to handle this "mess" appreciated!
Comments
Was this just a one time incident on which you are basing your decision to send the employee home? Have you talked to the emplyee about it? What is the emplyee saying about the incident and his toileting.
You may have a problem with the instruction for the employee to go home. YOu should probably consult legal advice. you could be discriminating against the individual.
If you take the issue as accommodation, what you are syaing is that you are willing to accommodate the employee (assuming he falls under ADA) by allowing th emeployee to go home to use the toilet rather than use the toilet at work. I'm not quite sure that is necessarily going to "float" if the emplyee is not agreeable to it. It does seem unreasonable on its face because you would require the emplyee to make up the time later because of the company's denial for him to use the toilet at work, which everyone else is able to use. If you can make a compelling case that it happens all the time, then you may have a better chance, but even then I see a problem unless you can establish that letting him use the toilet at work creates an undue hardship in costs.
It's requiring the employee to make up the time later rather than just paying him for the time as if he were at work, because of the COMPANY'S action to deny him use of the toilet due to his medical condition, that would have the clearest indication of why the act smacks of illegal discrimination.
Just my two cents worth on the issue.