Public Humiliation As a Punishment

[jevans1895]

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Florida

My question pertains to the use of public humiliation as a punishment. A supervisor at the office i work at makes people that forget to lock their computers to go in front of the work group and do an embarrassing dance. My questions are, is this a legal practice as work force discipline? I know of people in my work group that have been diagnosed, on medication, and have made known they have anxiety issues, does that factor in at all, and lastly if in being forced to do such an act caused an anxiety attack that required medical attention, is there any liability at that point?

[jk]

yes, they can do that. If you don't want to do it, you can accept whatever other penalty they choose. I'm thinking firing would be high on the list of alternative punishments.

as to anybody with medical issues: if they qualify for accommodation under the ADA they could be excused from the demand. Of course it is likely that other alternative punishment might be offered.

[aaron]

Ever been to a chain restaurant on somebody's birthday? In half of them, public humiliation isn't a punishment - it's a job duty.

[falseaccusationvictim]

I don't think that's an appropriate punishment, but I wouldn't complain if the alternative if termination or some kind of a probation at work. I wouldn't mind having a lax boss like that.

[cbg]

As long as the employer does not mess with the employee's pay, there are few if any laws dictating what an employer may or may not do with regards to disciplining an employee.

And with all due respect to jk, I'm not sure how the ADA would figure into this. The ADA does not require an employer to accept behavior in a disabled employee that they would not accept in a non-disabled employee. I'm not sure that they would consider it a reasonable accomodation that the employer should be required to (a) allow the disabled employee to forget a task that all other employees are required to do or (b) single the disabled employee out for different treatment than other employees get because MAYBE if they had to do something uncomfortable it MIGHT trigger an anxiety attack. I will grant you, it's a weird requirement. But I'll bet the employee never forgets again.

If the employee is that concerned about it, they should remember to lock their computers.

[jk]

And with all due respect to jk, I'm not sure how the ADA would figure into this. The ADA does not require an employer to accept behavior in a disabled employee that they would not accept in a non-disabled employee. I'm not sure that they would consider it a reasonable accomodation that the employer should be required to (a) allow the disabled employee to forget a task that all other employees are required to do or (b) single the disabled employee out for different treatment than other employees get because MAYBE if they had to do something uncomfortable it MIGHT trigger an anxiety attack. I will grant you, it's a weird requirement. But I'll bet the employee never forgets again..

if the employee has an anxiety issue and the accommodation would be to assist them to avoid situations that might trigger an attack, I would believe it would allow them to be excused from the activity. The punishment has nothing to do with their actual performance of their job so being relieved of the requirement could easily be seen as a valid accommodation imo.


by no means was I suggesting the employee would be exempt from the requirement to lock down their computer or even some other form of punitive action.

and personally, unless the overall atmosphere at this employer is one where this type of activity is the norm, I see it as nothing more than a juvenile boss with control issues. Now, I can imagine places where something like this wouldn't be out of place at all and as such, I would not see anything wrong with it in general.

[cbg]

"If the employee is in need of disciplinary action, such action must be something that cannot possibly result in any anxiety or cause him to rethink his actions."

Okay. Good luck with that.

[jk]

"If the employee is in need of disciplinary action, such action must be something that cannot possibly result in any anxiety or cause him to rethink his actions."

Okay. Good luck with that.

not just in disciplinary actions but anytime. There are situations in the course of employment where a person would be caused to experience anxiety. I see nothing improper about requesting an accommodation to excuse that person from situations that would cause an anxiety attack, especially when the activity is not within the job duties.


and you extended my intent much further than I. I would suggest something more like this:


employee is to be excused from unnecessary exposure to situations expected to cause an attack of anxiety.


I said nothing about not being able to discipline the employee.


I guess if it was a guy in a wheelchair, he too would have no valid excuse not to be required to dance the hokey pokey either.

[cbg]

No, I have no problem with excusing a guy in a wheelchair from dancing. But different disabilities, different accomodations.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how it is reasonable to ensure that at no time in the workplace will this hypothetical employee be exposed to anything that might tirgger anxiety since, as you yourself point out, all jobs have some anxiety involved. The whole POINT of disciplinary action is to make the employee think twice about doing it again.

Do I think the employer could come up with a more appropriate disciplinary action for ANY employee? Hell yes. The employer who came up with this one has a few rocks he needs removed from his cranium. But your post reads as if the action in question is unilaterally going to be considered illegal under the ADA because MAYBE some hypothetical employee with a hypothetical anxiety disorder MIGHT have an anxiety attack. And while I know that's not what you meant, I don't want the poster going away with that thought either.

[jk]

No, I have no problem with excusing a guy in a wheelchair from dancing. But different disabilities, different accomodations.
.

so, what's wrong with not forcing a person to perform an action that is likely to trigger an anxiety attack, especially when it is not an actual job duty.

and let's go with the guy in the wheelchair; what would be a reasonable accommodation for him?


why would that be any more proper than creating an alternate punishment for the guy with anxiety issues?

I'm still having a hard time understanding how it is reasonable to ensure that at no time in the workplace will this hypothetical employee be exposed to anything that might tirgger anxiety since, as you yourself point out, all jobs have some anxiety involved.

I didn't say that but actually, if the reasonable accommodation was to allow the employee to avoid situations that are reasonably believed to trigger an anxiety episode, as long as their work can be performed and that accommodation can be provided, I do not see a problem with that. As always, the accommodation isn't to excuse them from doing their job but merely put an accommodation in place that would allow them to do their job. If there is no such accommodation possible, then the employee has a choice of leaving the job or trying to deal with it.

The whole POINT of disciplinary action is to make the employee think twice about doing it again.

absolutely but that isn't the issue. That can be done through other means. Both due to that and the fact it isn't even an actual duty of the job, excusing the employee from the requirement should be allowed.

But your post reads as if the action in question is unilaterally going to be considered illegal under the ADA because MAYBE some hypothetical employee with a hypothetical anxiety disorder MIGHT have an anxiety attack

ok. The only way I believe it would be possible for a disabled employee to be excused would be:

there is a known disability (anxiety attacks). there was prior request for accommodation. the accommodation granted was to excuse the employee from situations where it was reasonably believed it would cause an anxiety attack. Obviously this accommodation is not intended to excuse the employee from any typical job duties and due to the specific job, it doesn't.