Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:

Follow Matheson!

Who Are We?

Occ Rehab Photos

Functional Testing Equip.

Matheson Philosophy on Workplace Safety and Work Injury Evaluation

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Physicians, Employers, and the 100% Mentality within the ADAAA

  
  
  
  

Have you ever heard an employer say, “We won’t take him back unless he is 100%”. A translation of this phrase is, “Even though it is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, we won’t take him back unless he is 100%.”

As I have expressed in this blog and in our monthly webinar series, the intersection of traditional physician return-to-work practice, work evaluator ignorance of the law, and employer frugality will frame a costly nexus of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA). Recently decided cases support the validity of my thoughts on the matter.

The ADAAA presents a return-to-work decision tree that opposes the common practice of forestalling return to work based on a physician’s restrictions.

In many ways it turns old practices on their head.

quote matheson intersection adaaa

Here is a hypothetical from my lay reading of the law:

An employee reports being ready to return to work after an extended absence. The employer has dependable knowledge that the reason for absence had to do with a medical condition. The employer documents his concern for the safety of the individual in regards to safe ability to perform the essential functions of the job. The employer informs the employee’s physician and the employee that return to work will not be allowed until the employee is “100%”.

Question 1: In your experience what does “100%” mean?

Question 2: Regardless of the meaning of “100%”, how is the employer violating the ADAAA?

Question 3: Regardless of the meaning of “100%”, how is the employer contravening Congress’ intention in amending the ADA?

Question 4: Given that the physician has significant knowledge of the employee’s medical status and has set work restrictions, what argument can be made that the physician is violating the ADAAA?

I would love to discuss your thoughts on these questions, so please take a moment to comment or leave feedback!

Roy Matheson

Learn More About Our *New* Upcoming Conference:
Matheson System for Equitable Employment Determination (M-SEED) Conference
Oct 22, 2012 - Oct 23, 2012 

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) gives human resource professionals the methods and power they have sought for years to affect resolution of lingering lost-time injury cases, to manage requests for reasonable accommodation and to screen new hires for safe work ability. The Matheson System for Equitable Employment Determination (M-SEED) conference is the quickest and surest way for employers, work evaluators, therapists, and risk managers to gain a better understanding of the ADAAA, while hearing first-hand success stories from those who have assisted employers to attain the goal of building healthy and effective workplaces. The M-SEED Conference is your starting point for implementing a plan to grow a healthy and effective workforce based on the spirit of the law.

Matheson System of Equitable Employment Determination Conference

Stay in touch with us on:

Comments

I think what we hear the most is "there is no light duty work available" as the most tried and true way to prevent people from coming back 100%, I think it's also tough to connect something that is state law to a federal law unless the client seeks relief in the federal system when discussing ADAA with employers
Posted @ Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:02 PM by bryan gilreath
Hi Roy 
 
 
Interesting questions you pose. Do you think 100% usually mean 'we dont want you back'? 
As for reluctant employers – such views are often predicated on the purchased reports from physician. It strikes me that human resources are the key decision makers or are best placed to make decisions based on the medical opionion s that have sought. It si for them to see RTW as process , a dialogue and a continuum in RTW . Focusing on what the employee can do falls away in terms of the debate. 
What you describe could easily be said to be common here in the UK and indeed might be applicable in developed countries with similar disability legislation and poor or inferior enforcement. The power relationship between the disabled person and the employer and their representatives is often inequitable. Combined with unhelpful use of 'health and safety' and 'insurance' concerns - reasons are then found to justify lack of 100% fitness. The employee if fortunate, is then directed to the company physician who in the main, is focused answering the employer's questions. RTW instead of being facilitated becomes a protracted and sterile debate that can move inexorable towards termination. 
I don’t know what American colleagues think but it is the case here in the UK that employer services (i.e. the occupational health physicians and others) paid for by the employer are not always robust enough as agents around equality compliance. Achieving successful vocational rehabilitation outcome may involve more challenging of the employer's view about the employee to achieve the preferred outcome.  
This makes it vital that human resources be seen as responsible for equality compliance so, ultimately, compliance issues may need to be directed to human resources. Perhaps it demonstrates the dichotomy between the broader policy objectives (ADA) of reducing employee absenteeism and retention of employment through effective vocational rehabilitation, and the daily reality of management decisions being made by employers on health and capability issues with the assistance of their occupational health providers. 
Posted @ Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:47 AM by Gerry Mcfeely
I was seriously ill for several months. My employer, the NHS, ironically, did no assessment or evaluation of my ability to return to work. I was told I had to be able to return to my full time post within 4 weeks or I could not return. This was a clear contravention of the then Disability Discrimination legislation.
Posted @ Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:20 AM by Helen Green
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics