But you said to get a Dr.'s note!

Factual Questions
1

I have a silly situation I’m dealing with, and have a legal question. (You’re not a lawyer. . .etc.)

Is it legal for a company to contradict the orders of a licensed medical proffesional?

The company I work for has some silly policies that are largely ignored, until a new middle manager comes in and feels the need to be a bully.
I was told to get a doctor’s letter, which I did, but am now being told that is not acceptable (verbally of course, nothing has ever been written).
Before I stand up for myself, I’d like to know the actual law in this case.
Can anyone direct me a resource for some answers in Washington state?

2

Maybe there’s something here?

3

Does the company have an HR (human resource/ personnel) department? Guidelines like this should be available to any employee. If they do, they are usually the last word for requirements for this type of thing.

4

If your physical issue qualifies as a disability, and your employer has 15 or more employees, he may be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

5

Do you have an employee handbook? What does it say?

6

This is off the top of my head, and is not legal advice.

You can contact the department of labor to ask about your specific case, and what the employers mandated obligations are.

Companies have to give consideration to medical needs that are detrimental to your health. They can however no longer employ you for your current position if you are unable to preform it and it will unduly burden them to accommodate you. They can offer you a different position if they have it. They can tell you no position you can do is available. You will have a certain amount of required sick leave available, during which they can’t give away your job. They don’t have to pay you any wages during extended sick leave. Doctors notes need to be very specific and when presented to employers they have to tread carefully to stay in legal boundaries. Things can be better in your case if your state has added protection, you have a contract adding extra conditions, or the employer has a generous policy on illness.

7

I think you’ve pretty much given the outline for the Family Medical Leave Act. In this case, yes, a physician must document specifically the reason for requesting FMLA. However, the OP didn’t really say what the difference of opinion was all about. Where I work, if an employee takes three or more sick days in a row, he must produce a note saying that he’s been under a doctor’s care and whether or not he has any limitations on what he can do at work. They MAY NOT, however, ask for anything more specific than dates and limitations. My store is unionized so that might have something to do with it, but never have I worked anywhere that required a doctor’s excuse that asked for more than what I mentioned.

Asking for more details for anything other than FMLA just screams to me as a huge invasion of privacy, and possibly not a very legal one at that.

8

Good point. It should be noted, however, that the FMLA only appies to employers with 50 or more employees.

9

From what I’ve been told, the head dude from HR says “no”. I just want to know if he actually has that authority, and if so, why he would refuse to put it in writing. (this is the same company that paid millions in a settlement to a woman who was told she could not breastfeed on company property, so I kinda doubt their legal and medical expertise)

10

I am currently fighting a similar situation. After getting approval from one supervisor for sick leave, another supervisor overruled it and retroactively denied it demanding a doctors note. I did get it, but unfortunately I did not have the foresight to get it BEFORE I got sick thus the supervisor will not apply it retroactively.

11

:confused:
Seriously this confuses me.
I know I work in the land of big benefits and socialised healthcare, but surely if your doc says you are sick and unfit to work, then you’re sick and unfit to work, end of argument.

I write sick notes all the time for patients so they get time off work and/or incapacity or disability benefits, and I talk to solicitors for patients who are unable to attend court appearances due to their current status as a hospital in-patient. All I have to say is that they were under my care from such and such a date to such and such a date, were unable to work/leave hospital/attend court or were unfit to testify during this period, and in my opinion should be be fit to work/testify/appear in court on such and such a date. If I don’t think they’re likely to be able to return to work in the forseeable future, I can put that too.

I rarely have to give a diagnosis and never have to provide details of treatment. Although patients may have to see their work’s occupational health doctor or the doctor at the benefits office with regard to long trm sick pay or benefits and medical retirements, my judgement about their unfitness to work at the time I saw them simply isn’t up for debate.

12

I don’t get what happened. Can you explain what actually happened, in a step by step way, please. Did you get sick? Did you request a day off? Days off? Temporary Disability? Other? It was rejected by? Your Supervisor? An HR guy? Other?

How many people does your employer employ? Do you have an Employee Handbook or other official statement of policy? Has any person in authority represented to you what the policy is? Have other employees been treated differently? Is there a pattern to the difference in treatment, ie, are women treated differently than men in regards to sick days?

Is your reason for requesting time off religious? Is it because of something that might be defined as a disability?

13

It sounds more like the OP has a doctors certificate to say that he or she can’t do X and the supervisor wants the OP to do it anyway.

14

If I get sick and can’t work, I don’t work.

Employer should cover it as a sick date. I’m not going to get into protracted arguments with them about this date versus that date, doctor’s notes, prior permission, and such horseshit. I will instead simply remind my employer that if an overall pattern of distressing organizational reaction to me calling in sick exhibits itself I will take that into account when evaluating whether I ought to be considering and/or seeking out other employment possibilities.

Don’t let the paper pushers give you ulcers.

15

Ok, here’s the whole silly story. I’m not sick, I’m not trying to get out of anything, I just don’t feel I should waste an hour in the middle of the day.

The company I work for has a seldom enforced policy of hour long lunches for shifts of 8 hours. For at least the past two years, I’ve taken 30 minute lunches, against policy, but with the blessing of my direct supervisor. (his words were something along the line of, do whatever, just don’t tell anybody) Great, I can pause long enough to grab a snack, and get back to work while I still have some momentum. (effective, productive employees, who wants that?)

Enter a new middle manager, who has nothing better to do than be a jerk.
I’m pulled away from my work station, and informed that I’m facing disciplinary action (violating my Weingarten rights, but that’s a whole other deal) for taking 30 minute lunches. I explain the agreement I had with management previously, and am told that the only way I can continue with the 30 minute lunches, is to obtain a doctor’s note. Ok, so I make a phone call, see the dr. the next day, presto, I now posess written orders from a licensed medical proffesional.

Not good enough. Said middle manager takes issue with the wording. I have letter rewritten minus **two ** problem words (during my lunch break). Letter accepted.

Few days later, I’m told that the head of human relations is reviewing my letter, and that I need to take hour long lunches until he makes a decision. Whatever.

A month later, I ask my boss what the outcome is, and he says he’ll check on it.
A week later, I just start taking 30 minute lunch breaks again, obviously it’s not an issue anymore, right?.

Couple days of that, and I’m told that “Joe Blow” in HR says no. I ask for a reason, I get none. I ask under who’s authority? I get no answer. I ask for written documentation of said decision, and I’m told, “I don’t know if he’ll do that.”

So now I’m researching the law with the extra hour each day. :slight_smile:

16

Are you unionized? Some unions can be funny with certain mandatory considerations that some might not agree with but must be followed because it’s union rules.

17

This sounds strange to me. So are you going home 1/2 hour earlier that you otherwise would because you only take a 1/2 hour lunch?

What possible medical condition could a person have that would require a 1/2 hour lunch as opposed to one hour? Just sitting and relaxing for an extra 1/2 hour would adversely affect your health?

If I was the HR director, my first impression would be that you were trying to be a smartass and flout the rules (not that this is the case, but it is my first impression :wink: )

18

According to this: http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/files/policies/esc6.pdf , your employer is within its rights, I think.

I’m on a computer with crappy Foxit Reader so I can’t quote from it, but it says on p.4 that an employer can refuse to allow you to waive your meal period, which would presumably include any portion thereof.

Why can’t you just work during the second half of your lunch?

19

That’s what it says. More fundamentally, though, employers (at least those in non-governmental and non-unionized contexts) have fairly broad discretion in scheduling the time that an employee works. The employer could probably require you to work two shifts (pre-lunch and post-lunch) with the post-lunch shift beginning an hour after the pre-lunch shift ends.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/HoursBreaks/Hours/default.asp

In order to claim some sort of medical exemption from this requirement, you’d need a doctor’s note that shows that you have a medical condition that requires you to work a different schedule (e.g., retterath must attend his trichotillomania support group every day at four or he’ll pull all of his hair out).

I’m also curious about what your doctor’s note said that would require a shorter lunch break.

20

I do belong to a union, but they’re just useless bill collectors. That was my first stop.

I never claimed to have a medical reason for a short lunch. I was told to get a note from my doctor, so I did. I explained to him the situation, and he said he’d write it. In fact, my Dr. suggested drafting a letter, versus just a note, to make it more formal, and dignified.

The long lunch is just a waste of (my) time. I’m a better worker with a shorter break, but nobody is willing to listen or compromise. The real pisser is the dozen or so exceptions to the policy, which change on a daily basis.