Not a hypothetical, but I cannot give all the details or it will be too easy to figure out the who/what/where.
A person has been offered a position with a company that provides services to outside clients. Before starting the position this person had surgery to correct a medical issue that would have made it impossible to do the job offered. The surgery was completely successful and after a few weeks the person was signed off by all the medical personnel and agencies required to be authorized to work again. The employer was kept apprised and the job offer remained open.
Today, the person was told by a senior manager for the employer-to-be that the client for whom they would be working had asked to meet with the prospective employee for the purpose of discussing the medical issue as the client had concerns about the employee’s ability to return to work. Notable also is the fact that the client intends to have a number of people with whom the employee would be working closely present to ask their own questions, and that all these people seem to know medical details.
This is disturbing as medical information had only been given to the potential employer’s management, never to the client, yet someone (yes, we probably know who) has taken it upon himself to relay this confidential information in some detail to the client. It is also disturbing that a senior manager feels it is appropriate to send a potential employee to this client to have this confidential information discussed in order to secure this job.
So, given that an offer has been made and accepted, and is now contingent upon the client deciding whether a medical issue they should never have known about makes them uncomfortable, what is the most correct way to handle this? Is a visit to an employment attorney the next thing to do?
Interesting case. Not sure if it applies in the case I cited as the medical information was only provided to the necessary management personnel document why there would be a delay in the employee’s actual start date, not information passed on to a casual employee to tell another employee. Thanks for the link - I’m gathering related case info so every cite helps.
You are correct. HIPAA only applies to “covered entities”, namely healthcare providers and agencies which move medical information from one system to another, not employers.
There’s a difference between legally-mandated confidentiality and professionally-provided confidentiality. It sounds like this falls under the realm of professionally-provided, and that there was no reason for the company to spread the info around… if they ask “do you have any medical blah which will keep you from doing the job?” and the interviewee says “yes but I’m having surgery on Tuesday to correct it; I should be fine and ready to work by the following Monday,” then if the interviewee isn’t needed until Monday, there’s no real reason for the information to go any farther other than office gossip and unfairly tainting the well.
Were I considering employment with this company, I would take this into consideration as an indicator of their professionalism.
Actually there was no condition when the job was offered and accepted - it hit rather suddenly a few days later, about 2 weeks before the job was to start. Up until today the company word was “great, let us know as soon as you are good to start”, then suddenly the client knows all about everything and wants to talk about it.
I agree whether it is actionable or not, it gives an uncomfortable feeling to think of working for a boss that unprofessional, but there are very few positions of this kind in the state and we are not in a position to be able to relocate at this time. The only other outfit running within 3 hours is even worse.
So, this medical condition delayed the person’s starting work for the client?
In the absence of any other details about what kind of work and what kind of medical condition we’re talking about - unless the person specifically asked that the medical information be kept confidential, I do not think it was unprofessional at all for the employer-to-be to explain to the client why their work was being delayed. If the medical condition is at all related to the work being performed, it was also appropriate for the employer-to-be to inform the client. Regardless of who may have “signed the person off”, if the medical condition is related to the job, the client may want more information themselves.
I can imagine plenty of combinations of jobs and medical conditions in which all of this would be perfectly reasonable.
I am not your lawyer, but I am a lawyer, and if I had been your lawyer, I would have stated “not enough information to advise on”. Presuming no statutory duty of confidentiality, it really depends on several factors. How much was revealed, specifics or a general statement. Was there a duty of disclosure to the third party (possible). Was this authorized by the company or done of own accord by an individual? You don’t even know how the third party found out.
It does not sound actionable at all. There are limits to privacy and your medical condition relative to being able to do the job at hand is not privileged info within the business . If this work is mission critical to the client’s business and the employee has surgery to correct a problem that would (if it crops up again) make the employee useless I would certainly want to know about the particulars of the person’s future capacity to do the work. A doctor’s note would not be sufficient if my business was on the line.
The main professionalism issue here (IMO) is the the employer should (in some fashion) be overseeing the client employee interaction vs telling them to report directly to the client. The flip side is that it’s tough job market and if you want the work you had best be prepared to jump through some hoops. Take your choice.
Is the OP saying that the start date of the new job was delayed because of the sudden need for surgery, and the client’s work was also delayed? If that is the case, discussing the medical condition as a reason for the delay seems reasonable.
If I’m misunderstanding the timeline, then the reasonableness seems more questionable.
If [del]you[/del] the person needs the job, it’s really the only one available, then go, be confident in your answers and satisfy their concerns and get the job.
Personally, I find it extremely distasteful and unusual that a client would be granted the authority to vet a company’s employee health issues. The fact that the company saw fit to hire that person should be all the client needs as assurance.
Sounds like the employee is working with a client who is prone to second-guess/micro-manage and the company is desperate for the business and allows it.
I would swallow it for the sake of employment and, as others have said, keep looking for a new company/job/situation ASAP.
Employement attorney wants to talk, so I will probably get some update later in the week. Person in question is undecided about whether to persue commuting jobs out of state rather than work with this company, but unprofessionalism seems rife in that industry so there is always the question of whether it would be any better elsewhere. Also it is sort of a “small town” and likely to follow him around the industry.
FYI - It is not in fact me. I possess no such rare skills and can work pretty much anywhere in the US.
In a perfect world, career change might be the best option, but he is 50+ years old and this is a second career already, so that is unlikely. In a really, really perfect world winning the lottery and saying buh-bye to working for others would be a viable option, but oh well.
Though this does not seem to fit the facts as you describe them there is a tort in some states called “tortious interference with business relationship.” Since you don’t really know who broadcast the information, you also don’t know why. I can’t imagine that you have any case against the employer as you seem to have freely transmitted the information to them.
I think the level of detail is significant: telling the client “Suzie will be delayed for two weeks because of medical issues” is really different from “Suzie will be delayed because her abortion lead to an infection, and because of the HIV, any sort on infection has to be watched really carefully, even though her viral load is really low. But a similar sort of thing happened when she had an enormous anal abcess cut out a few years ago, and she was back to 100% in a few days.”
It’s hard to say without more information. What kind of surgery are we talking about? I mean if the person had a brain tumor removed or even sholder surgery, the client might want to make sure they can still perform the job.
I guess the question is what does this person hope to get out of a lawsuit? To receive some big windfall so they don’t have to work again? Because that seems like a shitty way to start a new job.
My advice is they should just get on with their life and start their job.