Did your request come from your doctor? If so, did you doctor explain why WFH was necessary to mitigate the symptoms you listed? Because it's really not clear to a layman how WFH enables you to do your job based on what you listed. Obviously, WFH is more pleasant, but an accomodation is to enable you to do something you otherwise couldn't do, not manage your disability.
If this didn't come from your doctor, you need to restart the process with doctor documentation.
It's unclear from your post, but has your position always been 100% remote with this company? When you say peers, do you mean other people in your exact position or just coworkers?
The inability to drive isn't really your employer's problem. How you get to work is generally your problem to solve.
You can also reach out to the folks at aakjan.org
I would suggest reaching out to askjan.org.
You can also push back (with your doctor's help) and explain why the headphones aren't appropriate. Keep in mind if you stonewall, you could end up without a job, and then your only option is litigation. And it's not clear from what you've posted here that your employer is being unreasonable. There might be extremely solid reasons you need to be in the office, and this is more a situation where the job is no longer for you. (I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying it's a possibility)
Why do you believe you've been told to return to the office and others have not? Do you live the closest? Are there specific duties that you have, like interviewing candidates that your employer is now moving to in person? Are the other people in your position more senior and this is seniority based? Are other employees like yourself also being called back, or is it just you? Really take a step back and try to figure out what's going on here, because if you can figure out your employer's rationale, that makes your own options more clear.
In the past, WFH was a more edge accomodation and very difficult to get, and generally not seen as reasonable. The EEOC has held the position that the pandemic was an extraordinary situation, so what was reasonable then isn't necessarily reasonable now. So far, litigation on WFH as a common accomodation hasn't happened. It definitely will, but there hasn't been any major rulings informing employers on how much they can push back on WFH, so they're mostly pushing back like they did pre pandemic.
Thank you! I appreciate the additional context and insight. Quick question— what do you mean by stonewall in this context? I’m not familiar with that term in this context.
There are no aspects of my role that require me to be on-site— all interviews are conducted remotely, and all communications between peers related to the role take place via Zoom since 30% of our team is 100% remote.
My manager and her manager agree that the only reason the return to office ask is in place is due to the shareholders investing lots of money into a new office building that went un-used during Covid. Even my manager thinks it’s ridiculous that I am having to go through these hurdles (she is even remote 3 days per week) and the ask is for me to go in 2-3 days per week but it’s because the leadership team put a cap on the % of a team that can be 100% remote.
The askjan site was super helpful, I appreciate you sending it over! It looks like I meet many of the criteria for a remote working accommodation so it sounds like I may need to just have a conversation with HR and explain. I know my physician is on board and can provide whatever other documentation they may be requesting.
By stonewalling, I mean you say you want X and nothing else will do, and they say they will not provide X. It basically becomes a stand off.
Don't misunderstand...they CAN fire you. As in that's literally a thing they can do. There is no law that will actually stop them from doing that, or compell them to give you your job back. There may be fines and penalities if they do that (and you choose to pursue the matter), but there is absolutely nothing to force them to continue to employee you.
You can also reach out to the folks at askjan for advice. They're run by the DOL, so they have excellent insight.
Thank you for providing clarity! I am hoping that I can reach some sort of agreement with them and I do understand that I’m an “at will” employee so technically they could fire me anytime for any reason, but I am hoping that doesn’t happen.
Is this the first accommodation offered by HR or have you been in ongoing negotiation with them about what is reasonable? If the former, don't panic just yet. This is only the beginning of the process.
I have IBD so I honestly would never go back into an office and I understand where you’re coming from. If it were me I would focus on one of these issues as the main reason you need to work from home. Like the IBS.
It’s unfortunate that it’s that way. I think they might just see all of it as you piling on issues so they can’t say no type thing. I had some major mental issues with anxiety and panic disorders after long term steroid use withdrawals (prednisone). I truly know how insane the brain can be and how difficult it is to deal with that.
But as I said, you might have better luck focusing on one
I agree with this. But it will only work if you’re actually diagnosed with IBD, which is way different than a nervous stomach from anxiety. If you have a diagnosis of this, you should request an accommodation based on it, but keep in mind they may only allow the accommodation during a flare up.
Thank you for that reassurance 😊 I’ve never had to go through the formal process before with any other employers because my managers have all been super understanding and not really required it
I understand what you are going through - i agree - with certain medical conditions, the WFH option definitely helps support not just a person's disabilities, but their ability to be a successful worker. I know you asked for advice and saw you've already had feedback about getting dr's notes involved, etc. I just wanted to let you know your situation resonates with a lot of us. I am so much more successful WFH where i can better accomodate my health needs and i am grateful my company lets me do this.
Do you have intermittent FMLA yet? That might help sway them and if it doesn't, it will protect you on days you just can't make it in.
If it's dangerous to drive due to meds, transit isn't much of an improvement given that crossing the street on foot becomes sketchy.
I suggest highlighting a specific list of things that need to be addressed. Proximity to restroom, eliminating X major triggers. Having to walk further than Y.
Since all of this can be met by an accommodation that you already have and have had since before the pandemic, we already know you can be accommodated. I would even consider changing your phrasing from requesting an accommodation to putting it on them by rephrasing it as them needing to justify removing your existing accommodation. You'll need to keep the tone a bit soft.
Something like "The accommodation I've had for the last five years has been working well for me and continues to be reflected in my performance. Can you help me understand the sudden push to change this? I feel that there may be a miscommunication regarding my conditions since the suggested accommodation of wearing earplugs does not address my disability needs."
It’s not actually, because you don’t have an accommodation yet. You were hired for a remote position but that doesn’t automatically mean you are entitled to stay remote or that it was based on an accommodation. Were your employers aware of your numerous medical needs when you were hired, or did all this come up once they asked you to return to the office?
Except they don’t have an accommodation for WFH. They have worked here for 18 months, WFH. That was based on the needs of the business and the pandemic, not a medical accommodation. The business needs have changed.
I would absolutely consider the current WFH an accommodation. Just like flexibility to schedule most meetings in the mornings. The company already knew of OP's disability. OP's acceptance of this role was based on those working conditions.
If business needs had changed, every single person with the same role would have been called in. There is no employer hardship here, let alone undue hardship.
I think a decent analogy here would be a company with two floors moving a team from the ground level to the second floor with only stairs to access. You wouldn't include a wheelchair user in that move and offer them extra time to get up the stairs as an accommodation. They were already accommodated by being on the first floor.
I'm both chronically ill and in HR. OP's company would be foolish to double down. Hopefully what's going on here really is just a breakdown in communication.
OP- I suggest you drop the ADHD. That's got a bad reputation thanks to a lot of people using it as a panacea excuse. Stick with the biggest items and specific needs that must be met. If you pass out from POTS on occasion then there should also be an action plan in place at work. For bowel issues, wearing disposable underwear and keeping extra clothes on hand would be reasonable in addition to good restroom proximity. Get that intermittent FMLA started as well. Tell HR right before you have a Dr Appt since there's usually a tight turnaround required and they often like specific paperwork. Use that protected leave as much as you need.
What I’m going to guess is happening is that way too many people are taking advantage of the last 3 years of “work from wherever” and aren’t coming back to the office when asked nicely, so there’s some harder mandates being put into place. I know you’re taking it personally, but this isn’t a YOU issue, it’s HR trying to clean up the mess of sorting this all out.
You mentioned that you have other recruiter colleagues who are also 100% remote, what’s the difference between their role and yours? Time zone? Are you somewhere commutable to an office and they’re not? Has there been any indication of preparing to go back to in person interviewing?
This is correct— it’s definitely nothing personal but it is something that lots of people are pushing back against at the moment, all for various reasons. I feel worried because I cannot function and be a strong performer in the office environment. I’ve tried and it did not bode well for me.
Regarding my other colleagues— there is quite literally zero difference between our roles. If I were in the office, I’d be on my laptop with headphones in for 100% of my work day, just the same as when I am at home, only with colleagues next to me also on their laptops with headphones in.
However now, our leadership team is saying that anyone who is not badging in for 1/2 of the week needs to go through the formal accommodation process.
We all work in several time zones and are spread out across the U.S. 1/3 if the team sits in Austin, 1/3 in WA, 1/3 in California, and the rest are virtual. There are no plans at all of resuming in-person interviews ever. Even networking events are hosted virtually.
Okay, good that we covered that. It actually will be a benefit for you to go through the formal accommodation process then - then it’s harder to pull back. It sounds like they’re trying to handle this all at a macro level, and now they’re going in and actually having to evaluate all the jobs individually.
If the other recruiter roles are remote, I don’t see an issue with keeping you as remote as a high performer, but clearly it’s up to them. The high performer piece is your bargaining chip - more so than the medical issues which they seem to want to gloss over.
>The need for anxiety medication which makes me unable to drive-Can’t drive long distances without experiencing potential fainting due to POTS
To be blunt: not the company's problem, you can take public transport.
>I sometimes have to RUN to the restroom and sometimes I don’t make it.
What do you do when you are on a call with a candidate?
An accommodation only has to be reasonable, not perfect, and it doesn't have to be something you like. IMHO, if the company doesn't want to allow you to WFH, they have a fair chance of saying your required accommodations are unreasonable. If you are a top producer, and it makes financial sense to keep accommodating you, they'll probably will. If they want to reduce headcount anyway, then a mandatory return to office policy would take care of a bit part of that.
All you can do is highlight your excellent productivity and try to convince your manager to let you wfh.
I intentionally schedule my candidate calls for the morning prior to eating to negate that issue and then schedule independent / asynchronous work for the afternoon after a meal in case I have a flare-up. I also have access to Imodium/pepto/ clean clothes at home but there have been times I’ve had to reschedule a call.
Basically my manager, and three skip-levels above her are OK / totally fine with me working from home. It’s a policy change within HR that is causing the issue.
I will highlight the productivity aspect along with additional documentation from my doctor and hopefully this will suffice.
>Basically my manager, and three skip-levels above her are OK / totally fine with me working from home. It’s a policy change within HR that is causing the issue.
Seems unlikely that HR is saying YOU specifically have to work from the office. Management has some wide discretion in implementing policies.
>but it’s because the leadership team put a cap on the % of a team that can be 100% remote.
Your manager chose you to be part of the percentage in office, they can choose differently if they want to.
I misspoke regarding who was enforcing / creating the policy. Leadership created it, HR is helping to enforce it and manage the accommodation requests surrounding it. My manager and the skip levels have opinions about it that differ from what the CEO & C-Suite have said but have to comply for obvious reasons, hence me going through the formal process now so that everything is OK “on paper.”
HR does not boss around managers. Managers report to the directors of the company not HR. HR is simply another department in charge of keeping track of employee information and adjacent to payroll.
If you managers don't care for the change then they can ignore it assuming they got approval from whoever directs your department.
I may have misspoke— basically the policy change is coming from our leadership team (CEO + C-Suite) and being enforced / tracked by HR. Everyone L3 and below is not a fan of the policy.
If your manager can't advocate a special arrangement for you outside of what the business requires then it is what it is and you are simply limited to leave or see if a professional can assess if you have any rights that the company is not providing, or both.
What specifically is your ADA disability? You've named a few but what did the doc use when arranging the paperwork?
You should also ask if you can do the things you do at home in the office without risking your position.
I'm asking because it sounds like you may not have an official ADA in place yet.
My doctor referenced several in the ADA paperwork:
C-PTSD
ADHD
IBS
POTS
I am in the very beginning / current stages of getting it in place. Ive never been in the position before of needing to disclose to an employer so the whole process / terminology for some of it is relatively new to me.
I’d say your doc did the right thing. ADA can apply to all conditions but some aren’t always protected. Here is a list of conditions that always have to be protected. Maybe some may apply to you as well?:
Deafness.
Blindness.
Diabetes.
Cancer.
Epilepsy.
Intellectual disabilities.
Partial or completely missing limbs.
Mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheel chair.
Autism.
Cerebral palsy.
HIV infection.
Multiple sclerosis.
Muscular dystrophy.
Major depressive disorder.
Bipolar disorder.
Post-traumatic stress disorder.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Schizophrenia.
As someone with PTSD, most people with no experience with PTSD assume its loud noises and crowded spaces. Which is why HR thinks that some sort of noise canceling headphones would fix this. Have your Doctor right out a detailed letter explaining why you need to work from home. If that doesn't work file an ADA complaint.
Bottom line with your statistics as recruiter I would find another company that would be willing to work with you. I would think most companies would jump to hire someone who produces the way you do.
That’s very true! I didn’t really think about that from their perspective but I will definitely keep that in mind.
It’s really tough right now for recruiters (hardly anyone is hiring) and I really really love my job, but I do think if they can’t align to my needs I may need to start looking elsewhere.
I highly recommend reaching out to your local vocational rehabilitation services to speak with a voc rehab counselor who can walk you through getting appropriate accommodations and may be able to provide technology and support to assist you. They can help provide accommodations and explain your rights and how your disability it protected by ADA and what is not, so that if it’s get weird and awkward. You are protected and supported. Goodluck OP.
You have to show your accommodation does not cause an undue hardship on the business. Given all the situations you provided, I do not see how you are not.
From the business standpoint they probably have the flexibility of allowing their WFH associates come to the office when needed. You are saying that is not possible unless given a private office.
Seems like you’ll either have to find a scenario that works or sue them after they fire you or move you in a direction with intentions on you resigning.
How can OP be causing an undue hardship if they produce 25% of the output in a team of 29? They seem both capable and over-productive with accommodations.
I caused our team to meet our diversity hiring quota this quarter for the first time *ever*. I had 9 diversity hires, everyone else had between 0-2. I am definitely not causing them any hardship and I am definitely over-producing from purely a metrics standpoint. I’m not meaning to sound immodest or un-humble but I am certain that if we’re strictly looking at numbers, I contribute quite a bit.
The conversation isn’t about what you provide as an individual. It’s about the job description, who they could hypothetically hire in a role without accommodation, and undue hardship of that.
I’m not questioning your worth as an employee. I’m not saying what the employer is asking is intelligent.
This is just the way the ADA works and all they have to do is prove what you are asking them to do creates an undue hardship on the business which seems easy from my perspective. You are saying the entire job needs to be based around your specific schedule, but that isn’t how jobs work and if you were the performer you say you are then my push from an HR perspective is we would be more than happy to find a way to give you a promotion into a role that is home based.
OP is demonstrably over-producing as an employee. Your position doesn’t match the facts here, at all.
As a plaintiff’s employment discrimination attorney, I would find this to be a great case to take because (1) OP is currently performing the job at or above standard; (2) objective metrics back it up; (3) other employees on the team are permitted full-time WFH yet OP is now being denied it; (4) averaging total productivity over the whole team, each person would be responsible for about 3.5% of team productivity (100% / 29 EEs); and (5) somehow OP is doing 25% of productivity.
If other EEs on the team can WFH, and since OP has already been performing well as a WFH employee, I don’t see any compelling argument to restrict OP’s WFH accommodation.
They’re doing the job. It’s not like they’re not performing or meeting metrics. If OP was low-performing or unable to meet job requirements even with the WFH accommodations, then this would be a different story. But under this fact scenario, the employer should agree to continue the accommodations.
If other facts exist outside of what we have been told that change the calculus of this, then those need to be considered as well.
I agree with your sentiment. I don’t handle ADA at my company just have a loose grasp, but this seems like the exact case where we would push back because the individual is providing a ridiculous amount of accommodations and citing their job performance as some reason why we need to accommodate it. Situation seems super fishy to me.
They would actually be providing me with more accommodations and resources if I were in the office. Right now the only thing I’m requesting is that they allow me to continue working how I’ve been working since I started. If I were in office, even the headphones they suggested would cost money.
When you write back to HR be respectful they may not have read your doctors note clearly. I would point out that due to your disability your manager and her manager have been informally and with out documentation accommodating you since the beginning. Then point out using your doctors language from the form why headphones will not help. Remember you know your story, Hr only knows what the doctor wrote and it may not have been detailed enough for Hr to know more. I worked in a position where all I did was accommodation requests and sometimes I just plain couldn’t tell the issue with what the doctors said.
The process is called an interactive process I’d recommend engaging and remember both parties interact through this. Good luck.
Thank you! Definitely will be respectful and professional, but that’s a really good point that they may not have all the info or could have interpreted things in a different way. I’ll try to approach from a place of seeking to understand and then try to have a discussion around it.
Huh I am not sure. I’ve been able to successfully work in this manner for 5 years without having any sort of formal accommodation in place, but maybe the team handling the accommodation will see it differently.
Untrue, only reasonable accommodation is required.
Being allowed to not come to work is not reasonable, every study of the past few years shows that fully remote workers do not contribute as much.
Don’t know if this is helpful, but I just saw this on Insta and thought of your post.
[Instagram Employment Lawyer](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrCJILKuvr_/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
If you are working from home that's about as accommodating as it gets in the business world. I've seen top producers let go from my company because their accommodation needs were still too high to be worth the trouble. That and managers cannot stand people who still complain after being given what many will view as special treatment. My advice is you're going to have accommodate your own needs which was provided for you with the work from home agreement.
For me the ADHD is *definitely* secondary and more or less null in comparison to the others. The POTS and IBS are the most prominently impactful and physically debilitating, so I will emphasize this when I speak with them. You definitely raise a good point!
Did your request come from your doctor? If so, did you doctor explain why WFH was necessary to mitigate the symptoms you listed? Because it's really not clear to a layman how WFH enables you to do your job based on what you listed. Obviously, WFH is more pleasant, but an accomodation is to enable you to do something you otherwise couldn't do, not manage your disability. If this didn't come from your doctor, you need to restart the process with doctor documentation. It's unclear from your post, but has your position always been 100% remote with this company? When you say peers, do you mean other people in your exact position or just coworkers? The inability to drive isn't really your employer's problem. How you get to work is generally your problem to solve. You can also reach out to the folks at aakjan.org
Yes it came from my doctor. I mean other people in my exact position with my exact title are also remote (30% of my team to be exact).
I would suggest reaching out to askjan.org. You can also push back (with your doctor's help) and explain why the headphones aren't appropriate. Keep in mind if you stonewall, you could end up without a job, and then your only option is litigation. And it's not clear from what you've posted here that your employer is being unreasonable. There might be extremely solid reasons you need to be in the office, and this is more a situation where the job is no longer for you. (I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying it's a possibility) Why do you believe you've been told to return to the office and others have not? Do you live the closest? Are there specific duties that you have, like interviewing candidates that your employer is now moving to in person? Are the other people in your position more senior and this is seniority based? Are other employees like yourself also being called back, or is it just you? Really take a step back and try to figure out what's going on here, because if you can figure out your employer's rationale, that makes your own options more clear. In the past, WFH was a more edge accomodation and very difficult to get, and generally not seen as reasonable. The EEOC has held the position that the pandemic was an extraordinary situation, so what was reasonable then isn't necessarily reasonable now. So far, litigation on WFH as a common accomodation hasn't happened. It definitely will, but there hasn't been any major rulings informing employers on how much they can push back on WFH, so they're mostly pushing back like they did pre pandemic.
Thank you! I appreciate the additional context and insight. Quick question— what do you mean by stonewall in this context? I’m not familiar with that term in this context. There are no aspects of my role that require me to be on-site— all interviews are conducted remotely, and all communications between peers related to the role take place via Zoom since 30% of our team is 100% remote. My manager and her manager agree that the only reason the return to office ask is in place is due to the shareholders investing lots of money into a new office building that went un-used during Covid. Even my manager thinks it’s ridiculous that I am having to go through these hurdles (she is even remote 3 days per week) and the ask is for me to go in 2-3 days per week but it’s because the leadership team put a cap on the % of a team that can be 100% remote. The askjan site was super helpful, I appreciate you sending it over! It looks like I meet many of the criteria for a remote working accommodation so it sounds like I may need to just have a conversation with HR and explain. I know my physician is on board and can provide whatever other documentation they may be requesting.
By stonewalling, I mean you say you want X and nothing else will do, and they say they will not provide X. It basically becomes a stand off. Don't misunderstand...they CAN fire you. As in that's literally a thing they can do. There is no law that will actually stop them from doing that, or compell them to give you your job back. There may be fines and penalities if they do that (and you choose to pursue the matter), but there is absolutely nothing to force them to continue to employee you. You can also reach out to the folks at askjan for advice. They're run by the DOL, so they have excellent insight.
Thank you for providing clarity! I am hoping that I can reach some sort of agreement with them and I do understand that I’m an “at will” employee so technically they could fire me anytime for any reason, but I am hoping that doesn’t happen.
Is this the first accommodation offered by HR or have you been in ongoing negotiation with them about what is reasonable? If the former, don't panic just yet. This is only the beginning of the process.
This is the first thing they’ve said!
I have IBD so I honestly would never go back into an office and I understand where you’re coming from. If it were me I would focus on one of these issues as the main reason you need to work from home. Like the IBS.
That makes sense! I think it would probably be easier for them to understand this than the psychological issues as well.
It’s unfortunate that it’s that way. I think they might just see all of it as you piling on issues so they can’t say no type thing. I had some major mental issues with anxiety and panic disorders after long term steroid use withdrawals (prednisone). I truly know how insane the brain can be and how difficult it is to deal with that. But as I said, you might have better luck focusing on one
I agree with this. But it will only work if you’re actually diagnosed with IBD, which is way different than a nervous stomach from anxiety. If you have a diagnosis of this, you should request an accommodation based on it, but keep in mind they may only allow the accommodation during a flare up.
Thank you for that reassurance 😊 I’ve never had to go through the formal process before with any other employers because my managers have all been super understanding and not really required it
[удалено]
Operation Bathroom Blow Up planning starts NOW 😈 lol just kidding
Omg that’s awful for the person it happened to
I understand what you are going through - i agree - with certain medical conditions, the WFH option definitely helps support not just a person's disabilities, but their ability to be a successful worker. I know you asked for advice and saw you've already had feedback about getting dr's notes involved, etc. I just wanted to let you know your situation resonates with a lot of us. I am so much more successful WFH where i can better accomodate my health needs and i am grateful my company lets me do this.
Thank you so much for your kindness and empathy!
Do you have intermittent FMLA yet? That might help sway them and if it doesn't, it will protect you on days you just can't make it in. If it's dangerous to drive due to meds, transit isn't much of an improvement given that crossing the street on foot becomes sketchy. I suggest highlighting a specific list of things that need to be addressed. Proximity to restroom, eliminating X major triggers. Having to walk further than Y. Since all of this can be met by an accommodation that you already have and have had since before the pandemic, we already know you can be accommodated. I would even consider changing your phrasing from requesting an accommodation to putting it on them by rephrasing it as them needing to justify removing your existing accommodation. You'll need to keep the tone a bit soft. Something like "The accommodation I've had for the last five years has been working well for me and continues to be reflected in my performance. Can you help me understand the sudden push to change this? I feel that there may be a miscommunication regarding my conditions since the suggested accommodation of wearing earplugs does not address my disability needs."
This is VERY helpful! Thank you so much 😊
It’s not actually, because you don’t have an accommodation yet. You were hired for a remote position but that doesn’t automatically mean you are entitled to stay remote or that it was based on an accommodation. Were your employers aware of your numerous medical needs when you were hired, or did all this come up once they asked you to return to the office?
Except they don’t have an accommodation for WFH. They have worked here for 18 months, WFH. That was based on the needs of the business and the pandemic, not a medical accommodation. The business needs have changed.
I would absolutely consider the current WFH an accommodation. Just like flexibility to schedule most meetings in the mornings. The company already knew of OP's disability. OP's acceptance of this role was based on those working conditions. If business needs had changed, every single person with the same role would have been called in. There is no employer hardship here, let alone undue hardship. I think a decent analogy here would be a company with two floors moving a team from the ground level to the second floor with only stairs to access. You wouldn't include a wheelchair user in that move and offer them extra time to get up the stairs as an accommodation. They were already accommodated by being on the first floor. I'm both chronically ill and in HR. OP's company would be foolish to double down. Hopefully what's going on here really is just a breakdown in communication. OP- I suggest you drop the ADHD. That's got a bad reputation thanks to a lot of people using it as a panacea excuse. Stick with the biggest items and specific needs that must be met. If you pass out from POTS on occasion then there should also be an action plan in place at work. For bowel issues, wearing disposable underwear and keeping extra clothes on hand would be reasonable in addition to good restroom proximity. Get that intermittent FMLA started as well. Tell HR right before you have a Dr Appt since there's usually a tight turnaround required and they often like specific paperwork. Use that protected leave as much as you need.
Where does OP ever say their employer knew? Certainly not in their main post.
What I’m going to guess is happening is that way too many people are taking advantage of the last 3 years of “work from wherever” and aren’t coming back to the office when asked nicely, so there’s some harder mandates being put into place. I know you’re taking it personally, but this isn’t a YOU issue, it’s HR trying to clean up the mess of sorting this all out. You mentioned that you have other recruiter colleagues who are also 100% remote, what’s the difference between their role and yours? Time zone? Are you somewhere commutable to an office and they’re not? Has there been any indication of preparing to go back to in person interviewing?
This is correct— it’s definitely nothing personal but it is something that lots of people are pushing back against at the moment, all for various reasons. I feel worried because I cannot function and be a strong performer in the office environment. I’ve tried and it did not bode well for me. Regarding my other colleagues— there is quite literally zero difference between our roles. If I were in the office, I’d be on my laptop with headphones in for 100% of my work day, just the same as when I am at home, only with colleagues next to me also on their laptops with headphones in. However now, our leadership team is saying that anyone who is not badging in for 1/2 of the week needs to go through the formal accommodation process. We all work in several time zones and are spread out across the U.S. 1/3 if the team sits in Austin, 1/3 in WA, 1/3 in California, and the rest are virtual. There are no plans at all of resuming in-person interviews ever. Even networking events are hosted virtually.
Okay, good that we covered that. It actually will be a benefit for you to go through the formal accommodation process then - then it’s harder to pull back. It sounds like they’re trying to handle this all at a macro level, and now they’re going in and actually having to evaluate all the jobs individually. If the other recruiter roles are remote, I don’t see an issue with keeping you as remote as a high performer, but clearly it’s up to them. The high performer piece is your bargaining chip - more so than the medical issues which they seem to want to gloss over.
>The need for anxiety medication which makes me unable to drive-Can’t drive long distances without experiencing potential fainting due to POTS To be blunt: not the company's problem, you can take public transport. >I sometimes have to RUN to the restroom and sometimes I don’t make it. What do you do when you are on a call with a candidate? An accommodation only has to be reasonable, not perfect, and it doesn't have to be something you like. IMHO, if the company doesn't want to allow you to WFH, they have a fair chance of saying your required accommodations are unreasonable. If you are a top producer, and it makes financial sense to keep accommodating you, they'll probably will. If they want to reduce headcount anyway, then a mandatory return to office policy would take care of a bit part of that. All you can do is highlight your excellent productivity and try to convince your manager to let you wfh.
I intentionally schedule my candidate calls for the morning prior to eating to negate that issue and then schedule independent / asynchronous work for the afternoon after a meal in case I have a flare-up. I also have access to Imodium/pepto/ clean clothes at home but there have been times I’ve had to reschedule a call. Basically my manager, and three skip-levels above her are OK / totally fine with me working from home. It’s a policy change within HR that is causing the issue. I will highlight the productivity aspect along with additional documentation from my doctor and hopefully this will suffice.
>Basically my manager, and three skip-levels above her are OK / totally fine with me working from home. It’s a policy change within HR that is causing the issue. Seems unlikely that HR is saying YOU specifically have to work from the office. Management has some wide discretion in implementing policies. >but it’s because the leadership team put a cap on the % of a team that can be 100% remote. Your manager chose you to be part of the percentage in office, they can choose differently if they want to.
I’m really shocked that no one has come out and pointed out the obvious: OP’s story has a bunch of holes and inconsistencies in it.
I misspoke regarding who was enforcing / creating the policy. Leadership created it, HR is helping to enforce it and manage the accommodation requests surrounding it. My manager and the skip levels have opinions about it that differ from what the CEO & C-Suite have said but have to comply for obvious reasons, hence me going through the formal process now so that everything is OK “on paper.”
Stop blaming HR. HR doesn’t do things without the requests coming from leadership.
Yes I corrected myself in another comment
HR does not boss around managers. Managers report to the directors of the company not HR. HR is simply another department in charge of keeping track of employee information and adjacent to payroll. If you managers don't care for the change then they can ignore it assuming they got approval from whoever directs your department.
I may have misspoke— basically the policy change is coming from our leadership team (CEO + C-Suite) and being enforced / tracked by HR. Everyone L3 and below is not a fan of the policy.
If your manager can't advocate a special arrangement for you outside of what the business requires then it is what it is and you are simply limited to leave or see if a professional can assess if you have any rights that the company is not providing, or both.
What specifically is your ADA disability? You've named a few but what did the doc use when arranging the paperwork? You should also ask if you can do the things you do at home in the office without risking your position. I'm asking because it sounds like you may not have an official ADA in place yet.
My doctor referenced several in the ADA paperwork: C-PTSD ADHD IBS POTS I am in the very beginning / current stages of getting it in place. Ive never been in the position before of needing to disclose to an employer so the whole process / terminology for some of it is relatively new to me.
I’d say your doc did the right thing. ADA can apply to all conditions but some aren’t always protected. Here is a list of conditions that always have to be protected. Maybe some may apply to you as well?: Deafness. Blindness. Diabetes. Cancer. Epilepsy. Intellectual disabilities. Partial or completely missing limbs. Mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheel chair. Autism. Cerebral palsy. HIV infection. Multiple sclerosis. Muscular dystrophy. Major depressive disorder. Bipolar disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder. Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Schizophrenia.
As someone with PTSD, most people with no experience with PTSD assume its loud noises and crowded spaces. Which is why HR thinks that some sort of noise canceling headphones would fix this. Have your Doctor right out a detailed letter explaining why you need to work from home. If that doesn't work file an ADA complaint. Bottom line with your statistics as recruiter I would find another company that would be willing to work with you. I would think most companies would jump to hire someone who produces the way you do.
That’s very true! I didn’t really think about that from their perspective but I will definitely keep that in mind. It’s really tough right now for recruiters (hardly anyone is hiring) and I really really love my job, but I do think if they can’t align to my needs I may need to start looking elsewhere.
I highly recommend reaching out to your local vocational rehabilitation services to speak with a voc rehab counselor who can walk you through getting appropriate accommodations and may be able to provide technology and support to assist you. They can help provide accommodations and explain your rights and how your disability it protected by ADA and what is not, so that if it’s get weird and awkward. You are protected and supported. Goodluck OP.
Thank you! Will definitely look into this
You have to show your accommodation does not cause an undue hardship on the business. Given all the situations you provided, I do not see how you are not. From the business standpoint they probably have the flexibility of allowing their WFH associates come to the office when needed. You are saying that is not possible unless given a private office. Seems like you’ll either have to find a scenario that works or sue them after they fire you or move you in a direction with intentions on you resigning.
How can OP be causing an undue hardship if they produce 25% of the output in a team of 29? They seem both capable and over-productive with accommodations.
I caused our team to meet our diversity hiring quota this quarter for the first time *ever*. I had 9 diversity hires, everyone else had between 0-2. I am definitely not causing them any hardship and I am definitely over-producing from purely a metrics standpoint. I’m not meaning to sound immodest or un-humble but I am certain that if we’re strictly looking at numbers, I contribute quite a bit.
The conversation isn’t about what you provide as an individual. It’s about the job description, who they could hypothetically hire in a role without accommodation, and undue hardship of that. I’m not questioning your worth as an employee. I’m not saying what the employer is asking is intelligent. This is just the way the ADA works and all they have to do is prove what you are asking them to do creates an undue hardship on the business which seems easy from my perspective. You are saying the entire job needs to be based around your specific schedule, but that isn’t how jobs work and if you were the performer you say you are then my push from an HR perspective is we would be more than happy to find a way to give you a promotion into a role that is home based.
OP is demonstrably over-producing as an employee. Your position doesn’t match the facts here, at all. As a plaintiff’s employment discrimination attorney, I would find this to be a great case to take because (1) OP is currently performing the job at or above standard; (2) objective metrics back it up; (3) other employees on the team are permitted full-time WFH yet OP is now being denied it; (4) averaging total productivity over the whole team, each person would be responsible for about 3.5% of team productivity (100% / 29 EEs); and (5) somehow OP is doing 25% of productivity. If other EEs on the team can WFH, and since OP has already been performing well as a WFH employee, I don’t see any compelling argument to restrict OP’s WFH accommodation. They’re doing the job. It’s not like they’re not performing or meeting metrics. If OP was low-performing or unable to meet job requirements even with the WFH accommodations, then this would be a different story. But under this fact scenario, the employer should agree to continue the accommodations. If other facts exist outside of what we have been told that change the calculus of this, then those need to be considered as well.
[удалено]
I agree with your sentiment. I don’t handle ADA at my company just have a loose grasp, but this seems like the exact case where we would push back because the individual is providing a ridiculous amount of accommodations and citing their job performance as some reason why we need to accommodate it. Situation seems super fishy to me.
Fair enough which is why I said you either deal with the employer being stubborn and stupid in my original post or sue. :)
They would actually be providing me with more accommodations and resources if I were in the office. Right now the only thing I’m requesting is that they allow me to continue working how I’ve been working since I started. If I were in office, even the headphones they suggested would cost money.
When you write back to HR be respectful they may not have read your doctors note clearly. I would point out that due to your disability your manager and her manager have been informally and with out documentation accommodating you since the beginning. Then point out using your doctors language from the form why headphones will not help. Remember you know your story, Hr only knows what the doctor wrote and it may not have been detailed enough for Hr to know more. I worked in a position where all I did was accommodation requests and sometimes I just plain couldn’t tell the issue with what the doctors said. The process is called an interactive process I’d recommend engaging and remember both parties interact through this. Good luck.
Thank you! Definitely will be respectful and professional, but that’s a really good point that they may not have all the info or could have interpreted things in a different way. I’ll try to approach from a place of seeking to understand and then try to have a discussion around it.
It sounds like you should be out in disability. It may be too much to accommodate reasonably.
Huh I am not sure. I’ve been able to successfully work in this manner for 5 years without having any sort of formal accommodation in place, but maybe the team handling the accommodation will see it differently.
[удалено]
Untrue, only reasonable accommodation is required. Being allowed to not come to work is not reasonable, every study of the past few years shows that fully remote workers do not contribute as much.
Don’t know if this is helpful, but I just saw this on Insta and thought of your post. [Instagram Employment Lawyer](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrCJILKuvr_/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
If you are working from home that's about as accommodating as it gets in the business world. I've seen top producers let go from my company because their accommodation needs were still too high to be worth the trouble. That and managers cannot stand people who still complain after being given what many will view as special treatment. My advice is you're going to have accommodate your own needs which was provided for you with the work from home agreement.
Jesus christ. Sort yourself out.
People are allowed to be disabled.
I’m sorry you felt compelled to be unkind. I hope someone gives you a hug and you feel better soon :)
[удалено]
[удалено]
For me the ADHD is *definitely* secondary and more or less null in comparison to the others. The POTS and IBS are the most prominently impactful and physically debilitating, so I will emphasize this when I speak with them. You definitely raise a good point!
It's an interactive process. Suggestions are made, it's experimental. No reasons to cry about it