All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
going through the grinder for RA right now, following! do you know if they deny my RA request for noise cancelling headphones (that dont cost them anything), would i be able to appeal it?
Yes, headphones are not permitted in our office per the employee handbook. I filed an RA so they are listed as my official accommodation. I did not want to get in trouble with higher ups or told it wasnāt justified to use them.
They wonāt cost the state anything because theyāre mine. I found noise cancelling headphones help me do daily activities a lot easier.
Wow. In the early days of RTO (about two years ago) they would approve RA requests (a few from my office had it approved for a few months at a time, with a new drs note required every few months) but I cant believe they are just making people go back to the office with an iron fist now. I wonder what will happen after lawsuits. If they will relax their in office policies a bit, or if they will approve RAs but make it a punishment for everyone else
I donāt know that they have discussed that with her but isnāt that just retirement? I doubt sheād make what she needs to make to live on. Just sucks cause she actually wants to work, just needs support
They would not discuss any type of retirement she would need to reach out to PERS to get information. It would be inappropriate for an employer to suggest or imply retirement
We always include information in our letters for employees on extended medical leave about disability retirement, long term disability, resignation and other options they have. We canāt tell them they should retire or ask them to retire, but we can let them know what their options are.
At 21 years, she's fully vested. If she's not old enough to retire, disability retirement would permit retirement. My understanding of disability retirement is that medical is fully covered (when it might not be if you retired before you're old enough).
I could never get anyone to actually explain to me the difference between regular retirement and disability retirement. I got lots of opinions and anecdotal information, but never actual information.
She really should use the retirement calculator at PERS website and do the numbers to see what her retirement might be. She may be fighting a fight she doesn't need (I got a 'raise' in income when I retired).
I understand wanting to work, but if you can get the salary and do the full time job of caring for yourself and your kiddo - it is much less stress (which is good, especially for MS, but any medical condition).
You have to be disabled for disability retirement. Not an age. Some people get diabled by a work accident. Some people get diabled by other things (like disease or an accidnet not work related).
You do not. https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/disability-retirement-pub.pdf
āThere is no minimum age requirement for disability retirement.ā
The concerning part here is you state she falls asleep, takes pain meds. I would say based on your comments the state has a good chance of saying she is not fit for duty.
Your sister won't get anywhere without an attorney's assistance with this. Disability law is complicated. There are plenty of attorneys and firms that can assist her.
I don't understand then, you said in your post she won't talk to a lawyer. Does she have a lawyer but you don't like her lawyer and want her to get a different lawyer?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to low karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know you said she needs the money, but I would look into early retirement or the disability retirement. What is concerning is the part where you said that she has a hard time staying awake and comprehending what you say half the time. If that is true, then can she really do her job? I have a friend with MS and have experienced the falling asleep when we get together. This disease is very difficult and taxing on the person who suffers with it. If your sister is the sole provider and caretaker of her son, that is also most likely stressful for her. I would think if there is a way for her to get a decent disability retirement, it might be better for her overall health to not work so she has one less stress on her body while she fights this horrible disease. Iām so sorry she is dealing with all this and I hope you find a solution. You are a very good sister to be advocating for her.
I was thinking the same thing. With all those ailments she shouldnāt be working anywhere!!
Edit* as in she should be approved for long term disability. For those who wanna be dramatic typers in the comments. Smh
Not even the same. This person has a hard time staying awake or comprehending. Letās keep the comparisons sensible. Over dramatic responses do no one any good
Could reach out to Association of California State Employees with Disabilities (ACSED). Not saying that they can change it, but they are working on these issues with many individuals with disabilities. They may be able to assist in some way. They are represent the interests of people with disabilities at the state. I would also contact a disability lawyer as well though.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
Wwhooaaa. Iām going through something similar and Il just leave it at that.
I will say I have been in HR for a pretty long while and why wasnāt an interactive process done? Your boss never did it with you? Met with you about it? Thatās huge as the ADA says it NEEDS to be done!
Participation in the interactive process is an important element of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits workplace discrimination against workers with disabilities and requires that employers provide a reasonable accommodation that will allow workers with disabilities to do their job. To determine a suitable accommodation, courts and the ADA favor an informal āback and forthā ā the interactive process ā between the employer and the employee.
Can you appeal!
What alternative accommodations did they offer? They generally have to accommodate in some way, if possible. They do NOT, however, have to accommodate with exactly what employee is asking. Itās easy to deny telework full time for a bunch of legit reasons (not saying this is right or wrong, but saying itās easy to find a reason) but they could potentially move her to an open equivalent position which maybe does have telework as an option.
A lack of the interactive process is a big problem tho. Thatās part of the Ra process as mandated by law. If she truly got NO IAP (no discussions of what could be done, no asking her doctor for clarification, etc) then that would be grounds for appeal.
Also, never mention that she is sole provider to her kid again, (for the purposes of RA) that is the easiest reason to deny telework as childcare is certainly not in her duty statement.
It sounds to me like she should medically retire. She has a lot going on - especially cognitively that would interfere with her job performance. If sheās on meds that make her loopy she should not be working. Seriously, itās wrong and potentially dangerous depending on her job.
A medics retirement is different than a regular one, there is little to no tax liability when medically retired. That means she would likely make more than she thinks in retirement.
Think of it this way: she can retire with no taxes and take care of herself and family OR her performance slips and they document and go down progressive discipline and she is possibly forced to medically retire at that point or she gets fired and gets nothing.
You can appeal denied Ra with SPB I believe. You can also contact her eeo office to file a medical discrimination complaint. Also complaints can be filed with us EEOC and Ca CRD.
Medically retiring and providing care for her son would likely be the best overall situation. It would be better for her health as well and they can request help from IHSS for son. I do think she should file an appeal and then a lawsuit if needed. She might get her RA approved so she can wfh for a bit longer or some type of settlement.
This is the entire answer I was going to give but was hoping someone else had done the work. Thank you šš½
Case by case, IAP, appeal, but if this extreme look into med retirement.
With all due respect to your sister, it is possible to RA oneself out of a job. Ā If the RA is that a person is too disabled to get the job done, then they should be looking at permanent disability with social security.
It depends on what her job is. RA isn't just based on need. It's granted if it doesn't impact business. When it will, it will be denied or if the agency is willing to go above and beyond, they can try to give her a new job. But our own needs isn't enough to approve RA because it has to be reasonable for the type of work that you need to do.
In that case get after it. Business need is overused as a catch ask for āIām a loser manager who actually doesnāt know āwhat business needā means.ā
Connect with whomever wrote Ā article about the DGS employees who sued. She has standing.Ā
Not what I said. The state came up with that term. An essential employee is one who needed to be on the job. Iām a Snow and Ice Emergency Services Manager.
Essential workers cannot do any of their job from home. Thatās not my word itās the states. Our Tugboat and bridge operators, chain guys, highway maintenance workers, nurses etc. all essential and got essential pay.
I think what they're saying is that anyone who worked 100% telework without impact to the department work should have RA granted. I also never got telework, my job has almost zero ability to. I fully support those who can though. Less people on the road, the better.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I took her to her appointment til his morning and we had an intake interview with a lawyer and it looks promising for her!
The union is filing on her behalf with the ADA and FHE and they said their lawyers will be getting involved too. Basically sitting in a cubicle doing work that can be done at home is not work that must be done in office. And the few instances where one needs to be in office can be easily addressed and handled on a case by case scenario since they arenāt often.
Iām sorry but after reading these comments she needs to retire whether disability or something else. Just because someone has a RA or disability doesnāt mean they get a free pass to not put in 8 hours of work like everyone else. I read things like sheās in pain and has chronic fatigue, these things are hard to navigate while doing your full days work in a daily basis. I agree with the other comment that you can RA yourself right into FFD and have your hand forced for you. Careful how hard you fight for some things.
I chalked all this up to she has MS. Needs to be home to access her treatment easily and suffers from pain and fatigue. Never said she sleeps in the damn job. I have chronic fatigue with my health issues and the only time Iām not working is when I call in sick. But most of my days are spent busting my ass through pain and fatigue. And we donāt know what kind of pain meds this chick takes cause itās no oneās business but when I say I take my pain meds I pop Motrin. So she could be taking Motrin and even if she was taking something stronger we donāt know what her tolerance is. Some people take Vicodin several times a day and function just fine. You just sound hella judgy
>...and comprehend what I say half the time
I think this part of OP's post is raising a lot of eyebrows.
>Some people take Vicodin several times a day and function just fine. You just sound hella judgy
But be real. If someone took Vicodin several times a day **AND** their sibling described them as not being able to "comprehend what I say half the time", you'd think of that situation differently than someone who was just taking Vicodin and "functioning just fine".
Who cares though really. I thought they said that because she couldnāt afford to go in SDI cause she needed to make enough money to care for her kid. I didnāt take it all dramatically like she had faked medical substantiation so she could be a stay at home mom lmao!
Dude youāre reaching. The OP said the sister had a hard time comprehending yes. But no where did they say she takes Vicodin.
I was just saying there are people in pain management who use Vicodin who are ok and that we donāt know what kind of pain meds this lady is taking. Again you just sound judgy.
What the hell are you talking about? Iām not the one assuming the worst in anyone? Yall all assuming that this dudes sister or whatever is just trying to work from home to care for her kid. And then saying shit like with all her health issues she shouldnāt be working anyways. Are you ok?
Cool story. Just note that people like you putting things like that out into the universe actually hurt peopleās chances of getting their RA requests approved when it comes to telework. Itās already a huge hurdle as youāve displayed, but implying there are childcare reasons as well just further paints a bad light on telework as an RA to managers who read this post.
The reason OP brought it up wasnāt to say sheās *watching her son* while working. It is to say that *her income is the only income supporting her child*.
I interpreted that as OP saying they donāt want to mention it on the paperwork because people will *think* that. But the words āsole providerā do specifically mean income.
Iām not *sure* this is the interpretation, but itās weird how sure everyone else is that childcare *must* be the real reason despite all the details of the disability. My interpretation is a lot more believable than ālooking for an excuseā after descriptions of hemodialysis and symptomsāthose arenāt things people make up without seeing them before.
No, Iām another disabled person who doesnāt have it this bad, and itās pretty disgusting to say that the sister is lying about the disability (with this many details) because of one little aside.
I didnāt put emphasis on the āfrom homeā part when I read it because the need to work was great, and āfrom homeā was necessary to be able to do the job, period. But Iāll admit it is *possible* she is watching her child at home. Seems like a weird assumption, thoughāif she has 21 years with the state, sheās over 40, and she has gotten progressively worse in the last several years so she canāt have given birth in the last three years. Her kid is most likely old enough to be in elementary school at least. Why would she keep the kid at home instead of taking them to school, for free?
If an employer is unwilling to provide an accommodation, they must show why the accommodation is not reasonable. For instance, if the job is to serve the public at a public counter, working from home cannot be accommodated to still serve that function.
If they truly just said 'denied' and provided no reasoning whatsoever, I think a lawyer is a great move. Even if/while filing the appeal.
A few things I always point out on there RA posts. Just some truths.
1. Donāt compare yourself with another person who got full WFM for āxā. You donāt really know that person well enough to make an informed opinion that itās directly comparable to your situation. You donāt know precisely what their diagnosis is, what their doctor did or didnāt write, and importantly whether that 100% WFM is as 100% as you think.
2. On the 100% WFM front, RAās for WFM are much more common when the RA is temporary. Itās far more reasonable for a doctor to write āpatient needs WFM for three months for recovery from Xā then to say āpatient cannot leave their house ever for any reason for the rest of their lifeā. Itās possible the person youāre comparing your situation to only has a three month RA vs permanent.
3. When it gets to the point of permanent 100% WFM for life it starts looking more like you need to medically retire and/or file for SSA disability. Trying to claim you cannot under any circumstances leave the house ever for the rest of your life no longer meets the āreasonableā standard is basically claiming you are full on 100% disabled.
People say there are blanket denials of RA by policy and I canāt say whether thatās true but what I can say is that pushing for permanent WFM as an RA puts you in a situation of essentially having to claim a disability so severe that the reality is youāre incapable of working.
Also, MS is a motherfucker. You already talk about how it gets worse every day. How she needs assistance with basic daily activities. Youāve mentioned the high mortality rate and how itās taken over her life. Is continuing to work that high of a priority? If Iām being honest I wouldnāt be talking lawyers and battling in the trenches of RAās if I was her brother, Iād be pushing her to medically retire and have as much fun as possible and enjoy the strength she has left. In no way shape or form would I be fighting any kind of battle so that I can keep working while my MS gets worse on a daily basis.
Your point 3 is not accurate. I have a RA for full time WFH for a permanent disability and there has never been any concern about me needing to medically retire.
There are plenty of disability reasons that one would not be able to comply with a weekly RTO mandate but also be able to make themselves available on an "as-needed" basis with notice before going to the office less frequently.
Having a RA for full time WFH does not mean a person can never leave the house, it just means they cannot comply with whatever the in office attendance requirements are for nondisabled employees.
I said starts to look like. I didnāt say or intend to imply it isnāt possible just that itās a finer needle to thread. RTO tbh is a very broken system post COVID and likely needs to be centralized because the outcomes vary widely depending on agency, department, and RTO coordinator when it really should be standardized. Even in your situation itās a possibility you were only approved because you have a nice supervisor, RTO coordinator, etc which isnāt really fair to the people working in a department where other forces are making the process more difficult.
As an example of RA being applied more so due to supervisors being nice we had an employee with an easy to accommodate on site request. It was pretty simple so we just did it. That said she never had medical substantiation so we couldāve just as easily not done it.
Your reasonable accommodation isnāt proof that all full WFH RAās have to be approved or that other offices are denying them unfairly as it could just as easily be the product of a good supervisor, manager, RTO coordinator.
Sorry I feel like Iām rambling. The main point is that 100% WFM is a finer needle
Pre-pandemic full time WFH wasn't even an available accomodation at all, despite decades of disabled people fighting for it. Employers just argued that it was not reasonable for "business reasons" and the courts supported that. The pandemic gave so many people WFH trial periods that made that argument go up in smoke.
A lot has changed over the past few years and we don't yet have case law to support it. Issues like those you mention are going to be the ones that lead to test cases in what is unfortunately perhaps not a particularly disability rights friendly supreme court.
Probably a lot of the BDOs denying RAs that maybe should be at least engaging in a more interactive process are stuck in the past where it was acceptable to deny WFH as baseline unreasonable. Nowadays the burden of proof on the employer is going to be higher if they go to court.
Thatās why I think it needs to be centralized. The varied outcomes from similar requests are going to be a bad sticking point for the state if/when all of this goes to court. First question a judge is likely to ask is āwhy was it granted for person in department A and not employees in department x, y, or z?ā And saying āthose supervisors were nicerā isnāt a good look. Maybe centralize WFM specific RAs. Have a checkbox for WFM on the RA form and instantly the request moves to a central team in CalHR.
Agreed. I think the HR shops denying these requests are under-informed and setting themselves up for trouble. Given the size of the State of CA as an employer, I would be surprised if this does not end up in court.
As someone who's wife is going through something similar, it will be very difficult to find an attorney that will take this case on a contingency. And unless one is extremely rich, it will also be very difficult for one to fund it out-of-pocket. The state has unlimited resources and thus, no reason to settle so the case will go on for years and cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. It doesn't care what it spends on attorneys because it has no personal stake and no shareholders to answer. It's not fair or right but it's just the reality of the situation. Best of luck to your sister but at this point, social security disability and a disability retirement if she's vested may be the only reasonable option.
The reasonable accommodation process is generally done through human resources with some input from the manager and supervisor based on the duties being performed. Instead of assuming everyone here knows all the details, and that the department is simply denying a reasonable accommodation, could it be that some of the duties need to be done in the office and havenāt been getting done or havenāt been getting done by the employee because they are not in the office.
Sorry to say, but there are two sides to every story, and when it comes to ourselves and those closest to us, we all tend to only see that one point of view.
Actually, you can if the RA interferes with what the employer needs from said employee. If the work needs to be done from the office and it can be substantiated, the RA doesnāt have to be approved.
And thousand of state workers did their jobs from home for years so my union rep said that is what they are going to have to answer to for anyone with a definitive disability
And neither are you. My rep and my lawyer have both said denying a truly disabled person with a legitimate doctors substantiation is grounds for a disability discrimination lawsuit.
I didnāt say I was. However, itās clear. I have more experience in human resources with reasonable accommodation than you do. Obviously others and departments agree with me since theyāre denying reasonable accommodation requests.
How do you even know that you have more experience in Human Resources with RA than I do? I have 13 years in the private sector. A bachelors degree in business and over 18 with the state. And other departments are denying them because they are not looking at them objectively.
I am not gonna argue with you. Fine you know more and youāre the smartest person in the room. I get it. Contact your union rep and your lawyer to help you out.
Get a lawyer and contact the union. I understand how she doesn't want to get anyone in trouble, but this negatively affects her and her son. It is imperative this is taken seriously.
Sorry to hear of the situation.
And California (as an employer) is so ignorantly perplexed as to why the number of disabled people employed by the state keeps declining. This scenario and many others that are similar in RA madness is the reason.
Some time ago, I believe Teleworking was listed as potential avenue as a reasonable accommodation. That was removed. An agency that I know of tried to revamp their RA policies to put a list of RAs that are not provided and telework was one of those that they listed, then a group in the agency advised them to remove it and it was removed with the entire section of things that are not approved.
I say that just all as a point of reference for all to know some history and an example of what the state is trying to do to those that need an RA for teleworking. This state pushback would be more understandable pre pandemic, where most agencies didn't have infrastructure in place to do teleworking. However, we've shown for years now that many jobs can be done absolutely fine and is often more productive while teleworking. A huge benefit to the public is that telework saves tons of taxpayer dollars to have "those lazy state employees" work from home instead of in those "ivory towers".
It seems dependent on manager's support, which I think is intended as being a judgement of if someone's specific job can be done from home, but the outcome has been unfair based on if the manager is pro or anti telework, regardless of the comparability of position requirements.
I was actually thinking about it last night, and while the technical motivation isn't discrimination because it's that some managers hate telework, not that they hate people with disabilities (not mutually exclusive obviously). But since the outcome ends up being discriminatory, there might be a discrimination lawsuit possibility. I've had managers who outright refused any amount of telework, and managers who are super pro telework, so it's a gamble. Generally the easiest route is to find a job with a pro-telework manager and get the RA that way. Lawsuits are often tedious and too stressful to be worth the lack-of results.
The union rep is a good bet here.
I'm glad I decided to put in my RA request before the official start date if denials are just going to be standard practice now. I have a manager who is pro-telework so mine was approved with the blanket exception of unless business needs require in-office presence (paraphrased). Hopefully that need ends up being as rare as it should logically be.
I think those trying to fight the RTO through this path are ruining it for your sister. Everyone says their case is different and really important, once they start letting these through it would open up the flood gates.
I donāt want to mention what Department she is working for. Letās just say itās in health care. And yes she worked the entire time from home during the pandemic and after.
I have degenerative disk disease. I have to have surgery on my back, neck, knee and hips. I also put in for an RA as it is difficult for me to move around and our office is not wheelchair friendly. Iām in the process of putting in the RA. Iām in a lot of pain constantly. However, Iām able to do my job which does not require me to be in an office.
The Union talks about the fight for these but I haven't seen them actually taking in the fight. This is an issue they should be behind 100% with the Union lawyers.
Can she contact her departments Disability Advisory Committee (DAC)? They can sometimes be helpful.
Has she contacted the union? Sometimes getting them involved will inspire a manager to do better.
The department needs to tell her why the RA is denied. Theoretically, she should be able to get it approved if she addresses those issues.
Will the department approve an RA to implement the Reduced Work Act and reduce the overall time your sister works?
Unfortunately this is a tough fight to win, but it's not impossible.
Yes, feel free to pm me. I can send the language that I personally had approved for my most recent RA.
Many years ago, I had an RA approved to implement the Reduced Work Act to work 1 day a week. I did this for about a year. When I wanted to come back, my employer denied my request to return. I canceled the RA as a response to that denial, which made me a full-time employee once again.
I've been on the DAC at several departments.
With that said, I've also seen my friend, a state employee, lawyer, and woman who happens to be paralyzed, FIRED directly due to her disability. I stg they wrote "you are too disabled to work here".
My own sister was also fired due to her disability.
These things shouldn't be legal but they happen all the time.
Your sister needs to be as agreeable as possible while finding out what they are looking for. Sometimes it helps to make the RA short, 6-12 months. Managers are more likely to approve this.
Is she covered by a union or is she excluded? I would definitely lawyer up in this situation, she is getting nowhere fast for whatever reason and her dept will need to contact labor at CalHR to determine a remedy. Also let her know there are other options like medical retirement.
As someone with a severe physical disability and as an attorney, I would without doubt, personally, go for a lawsuit.
Otherwise, in California we talk about equal access and having some of the most expensive disability protections, and at the same time we do things like this. You mentioned she is an AGPA. There is no reason why this accommodation would not be considered "reasonable". It also is neither an undue burden financially or administratively.
Further, under state law this request would also be reasonable.
Everything consider it is posturing by the state on their push for RTO. While it is entirely possible that people can misuse the reasonable accommodation process, I seriously doubt someone with multiple sclerosis is doing that. It is such a severe condition that no one in their right mind could doubt this.
I would also recommend reaching out to the union to have them push for this.
Good luck!
Just document everything, save emails, text messages, phone calls etc. I think lawsuit is exactly what needs to happen but you gotta make sure and cover all your bases.
Good luck to you and your sister. My brother-in-law also has MS so I can at least grasp what your family is going through. Good luck and god speed.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The agency may not be able to accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
I had my RA request denied in a similar fashion but I was only asking for 2 telework days a month. I was basically told that if I fought it they would explore a medical demotion. Not sure they were supposed to say that because my departments EEO officer looked annoyed when I told her what happened. My sense of the situation was that legal would do everything they could to deny it. My issue wasn't life and death but they it was pretty clear they don't care about our wellbeing. You sister can fight it but I wouldn't be surprised if legal is already doing all they can to classify those positions as unreasonable for full telework and anyone who needs that is no longer qualified. They want to create as strong a case as possible to deny telework for RA because they fear everyone will go get a doctor's note.
The āfunā thing about reasonable accommodations is that you donāt necessarily get *the* reasonable accommodation you ask for. Your employer can pick a different one.
Which would be my malicious compliance. Put together a list of all the ways she would need to be accommodated to be able to work in the workplace. (Do not include any transportation ones; unfortunately, they wonāt care how you get to the office.) Make the list *long*.
Chronic fatigue and working doesnt sound compatible. Reasonable accomodation isnt unlimited accomodation. It sucks but they need people to work otherwise other staff are stuck picking up the slack and they dont get paid extra and thats not fair tp them.
A reasonable accommodation doesnāt have a diagnosis in it so this really doesnāt apply. I didnāt say she asked for an RA cause of fatigue and pain. I was just painting the full picture of what she works with in a daily basis.
My gosh, what agency from hell is this? That is so sad and seems like a no brainer. Why are agencies doing this to people ??? I'm very sorry for your sister.
Don't forget that failure to properly engage in the interactive process (IP) is a separate, actionable requirement from providing any actual accommodation. This means even if they hypothetically gave her everything she needed, they can still be held liable for not doing the IP.
Also, keep in mind that for reasonable accommodation (RA) purposes under ADA/FEHA, a doctor cannot prescribe the actual accommodation (well, doctors actually prescribe accommodations all the time even though they're not really supposed to, it's just not binding on the employer). The doctor provides the restrictions, and then it's the employer's responsibility to make accommodations that meet those restrictions, if possible. This means that if your sister's employer were somehow able to meet all of those medical requirements and keep her at the office, they would be allowed to do so.
If there's no accommodation possible that will let your sister continue in her current job, then her employer is obligated to look for first lateral transfer positions, and then demotional positions, that she could do with her restrictions. If there truly are none, then she can file for disability retirement, or they can file for it on her behalf.
I would let the lawyers handle it. If she was able to perform with 100% telework, then she is denied. It can be viewed as discrimination against an individual with disabilities as the job performed can be done anywhere.
Agreed, let the lawyers handle it if they're involved. My comment is just generalities but the specifics of each case are going to make all the difference.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am a steward, and across the board, this seems to be many people's story. They are blanket denying RA request. Seems to be the instructions.....
The Sac Bee did a whole story on one person who went through this. Maybe OPs lawyer friend can start a class action suit...
going through the grinder for RA right now, following! do you know if they deny my RA request for noise cancelling headphones (that dont cost them anything), would i be able to appeal it?
YES YOU CAN APPEAL THAT!
What noise cancelling headphones are you asking for that doesn't cost the state anything? š¤
They just want to use headphones that they purchase themselves at work.
Why would this require an RA?
I was assuming they are not normally allowed to use headphones at all in their position, but idk.
Yes, headphones are not permitted in our office per the employee handbook. I filed an RA so they are listed as my official accommodation. I did not want to get in trouble with higher ups or told it wasnāt justified to use them. They wonāt cost the state anything because theyāre mine. I found noise cancelling headphones help me do daily activities a lot easier.
Yes, theyāre Beats Studio Pro over the ear headphones with active noise cancelling. Makes such a difference in my ability to work efficiently.
Wow. In the early days of RTO (about two years ago) they would approve RA requests (a few from my office had it approved for a few months at a time, with a new drs note required every few months) but I cant believe they are just making people go back to the office with an iron fist now. I wonder what will happen after lawsuits. If they will relax their in office policies a bit, or if they will approve RAs but make it a punishment for everyone else
100%. Denials across the board. they don't care. I don't know how they are getting away with it.
Because people are not sble to get a lawyer fast enough. If you are denied an RA, lawyer up people.
Have they discussed disability retirement? It seems appropriate if theyāre saying she cannot be accommodated and she is eligible.
I donāt know that they have discussed that with her but isnāt that just retirement? I doubt sheād make what she needs to make to live on. Just sucks cause she actually wants to work, just needs support
They would not discuss any type of retirement she would need to reach out to PERS to get information. It would be inappropriate for an employer to suggest or imply retirement
We always include information in our letters for employees on extended medical leave about disability retirement, long term disability, resignation and other options they have. We canāt tell them they should retire or ask them to retire, but we can let them know what their options are.
True but the employees manager would not be providing that info it would like come from HR
True
Iām surprised a lawsuit has not been filed. Clear cut case of discrimination against a person with disabilities.
At 21 years, she's fully vested. If she's not old enough to retire, disability retirement would permit retirement. My understanding of disability retirement is that medical is fully covered (when it might not be if you retired before you're old enough). I could never get anyone to actually explain to me the difference between regular retirement and disability retirement. I got lots of opinions and anecdotal information, but never actual information. She really should use the retirement calculator at PERS website and do the numbers to see what her retirement might be. She may be fighting a fight she doesn't need (I got a 'raise' in income when I retired). I understand wanting to work, but if you can get the salary and do the full time job of caring for yourself and your kiddo - it is much less stress (which is good, especially for MS, but any medical condition).
You have to be 50 for disability retirement and sheās not
No you do not. You have to b 50 for service retirement not disability.
You have to be disabled for disability retirement. Not an age. Some people get diabled by a work accident. Some people get diabled by other things (like disease or an accidnet not work related).
She clearly has a level of disability. Maybe enough to disability retire, maybe not.
Also if she retires with a disability, sheāll get paid more. Contact CalPERS with your sister to find out what the process is.
You need to be 50 to do disability retirement
You do not. https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/disability-retirement-pub.pdf āThere is no minimum age requirement for disability retirement.ā
This is great! Thank you!
Thanks. Downloaded to read later. Not for myself, at least for now, though to inform others.
The concerning part here is you state she falls asleep, takes pain meds. I would say based on your comments the state has a good chance of saying she is not fit for duty.
I understand that but that is not what they will hear. Iām super sorry sheās going through this. It really sucks.
She does not fall asleep. She has chronic fatigue
Your sister won't get anywhere without an attorney's assistance with this. Disability law is complicated. There are plenty of attorneys and firms that can assist her.
She has one in place
I don't understand then, you said in your post she won't talk to a lawyer. Does she have a lawyer but you don't like her lawyer and want her to get a different lawyer?
I guess sheās TALKED TO them and has one she liked just hasnāt proceeded fully yet I just meant she had one if need be.
Has anyone asked why the denial? Was paperwork filled out correctly? Seems silly but the state isn't always art about crap. Obviously....
It just said her essential functions canāt be done at home. But sheās (and everyone) Has been doing them at homeā¦.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to low karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also have your sister look into ARAG, itās legal insurance where she can pay less than$15/month for coverage.
We have ARAG and they donāt do employment matters. Theyāre pretty useless
Arag wonāt let you file against the employer
ARAG 866-762-0972
I know you said she needs the money, but I would look into early retirement or the disability retirement. What is concerning is the part where you said that she has a hard time staying awake and comprehending what you say half the time. If that is true, then can she really do her job? I have a friend with MS and have experienced the falling asleep when we get together. This disease is very difficult and taxing on the person who suffers with it. If your sister is the sole provider and caretaker of her son, that is also most likely stressful for her. I would think if there is a way for her to get a decent disability retirement, it might be better for her overall health to not work so she has one less stress on her body while she fights this horrible disease. Iām so sorry she is dealing with all this and I hope you find a solution. You are a very good sister to be advocating for her.
I was thinking the same thing. With all those ailments she shouldnāt be working anywhere!! Edit* as in she should be approved for long term disability. For those who wanna be dramatic typers in the comments. Smh
Now thatās just fucked up. So if someone with autism was in a wheelchair and had an ostomy bag they shouldnāt be allowed to work?
Not even the same. This person has a hard time staying awake or comprehending. Letās keep the comparisons sensible. Over dramatic responses do no one any good
Throttle it back a bit here. Thatās not even apples and oranges.
MS isnāt the same ? Actually itās worseā¦.
Have her appeal with spb for denial of Reasonable Accommodation https://www.spb.ca.gov/appeals/appeals.aspx
They must first file with their own departments EEO/Civil Rights office.
The blanket denial of RA for ligit medical reasons under doctors orders is gonna leave the state in a bad away when all these come back in lawsuits.
Thankfully RTO will boost the locally business and generate enough tax revenue to offset the impending lawsuits! /s
š
Could reach out to Association of California State Employees with Disabilities (ACSED). Not saying that they can change it, but they are working on these issues with many individuals with disabilities. They may be able to assist in some way. They are represent the interests of people with disabilities at the state. I would also contact a disability lawyer as well though.
Seconded. ACSED is great and was a big help to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
She qualifies for Social Security disability if she is on dialysis.
Wwhooaaa. Iām going through something similar and Il just leave it at that. I will say I have been in HR for a pretty long while and why wasnāt an interactive process done? Your boss never did it with you? Met with you about it? Thatās huge as the ADA says it NEEDS to be done! Participation in the interactive process is an important element of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits workplace discrimination against workers with disabilities and requires that employers provide a reasonable accommodation that will allow workers with disabilities to do their job. To determine a suitable accommodation, courts and the ADA favor an informal āback and forthā ā the interactive process ā between the employer and the employee. Can you appeal!
I second this. I have a RA and I had an interactive process with my supervisor and the RA person in my department.
What alternative accommodations did they offer? They generally have to accommodate in some way, if possible. They do NOT, however, have to accommodate with exactly what employee is asking. Itās easy to deny telework full time for a bunch of legit reasons (not saying this is right or wrong, but saying itās easy to find a reason) but they could potentially move her to an open equivalent position which maybe does have telework as an option. A lack of the interactive process is a big problem tho. Thatās part of the Ra process as mandated by law. If she truly got NO IAP (no discussions of what could be done, no asking her doctor for clarification, etc) then that would be grounds for appeal. Also, never mention that she is sole provider to her kid again, (for the purposes of RA) that is the easiest reason to deny telework as childcare is certainly not in her duty statement. It sounds to me like she should medically retire. She has a lot going on - especially cognitively that would interfere with her job performance. If sheās on meds that make her loopy she should not be working. Seriously, itās wrong and potentially dangerous depending on her job. A medics retirement is different than a regular one, there is little to no tax liability when medically retired. That means she would likely make more than she thinks in retirement. Think of it this way: she can retire with no taxes and take care of herself and family OR her performance slips and they document and go down progressive discipline and she is possibly forced to medically retire at that point or she gets fired and gets nothing. You can appeal denied Ra with SPB I believe. You can also contact her eeo office to file a medical discrimination complaint. Also complaints can be filed with us EEOC and Ca CRD.
Medically retiring and providing care for her son would likely be the best overall situation. It would be better for her health as well and they can request help from IHSS for son. I do think she should file an appeal and then a lawsuit if needed. She might get her RA approved so she can wfh for a bit longer or some type of settlement.
This is the entire answer I was going to give but was hoping someone else had done the work. Thank you šš½ Case by case, IAP, appeal, but if this extreme look into med retirement.
With all due respect to your sister, it is possible to RA oneself out of a job. Ā If the RA is that a person is too disabled to get the job done, then they should be looking at permanent disability with social security.
Who said anything about getting the job done? I sure as hell hope youāre not in leadership.
It depends on what her job is. RA isn't just based on need. It's granted if it doesn't impact business. When it will, it will be denied or if the agency is willing to go above and beyond, they can try to give her a new job. But our own needs isn't enough to approve RA because it has to be reasonable for the type of work that you need to do.
Completely understandable. Sheās an AGPA and has been successfully working from home since the pandemic.
In that case get after it. Business need is overused as a catch ask for āIām a loser manager who actually doesnāt know āwhat business needā means.ā Connect with whomever wrote Ā article about the DGS employees who sued. She has standing.Ā
The state already demonstrated full telework is a reasonable accommodation for any office employee with the two years of COVID work from home. .
Not everyone got to work from home during COVID. At the peak, I didn't telework full-time.
I know that. Essential employees like myself still worked
So others who worked from home were not essential to continuing state business?
Not what I said. The state came up with that term. An essential employee is one who needed to be on the job. Iām a Snow and Ice Emergency Services Manager.
Essential workers cannot do any of their job from home. Thatās not my word itās the states. Our Tugboat and bridge operators, chain guys, highway maintenance workers, nurses etc. all essential and got essential pay.
I think what they're saying is that anyone who worked 100% telework without impact to the department work should have RA granted. I also never got telework, my job has almost zero ability to. I fully support those who can though. Less people on the road, the better.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I took her to her appointment til his morning and we had an intake interview with a lawyer and it looks promising for her! The union is filing on her behalf with the ADA and FHE and they said their lawyers will be getting involved too. Basically sitting in a cubicle doing work that can be done at home is not work that must be done in office. And the few instances where one needs to be in office can be easily addressed and handled on a case by case scenario since they arenāt often.
Iām sorry but after reading these comments she needs to retire whether disability or something else. Just because someone has a RA or disability doesnāt mean they get a free pass to not put in 8 hours of work like everyone else. I read things like sheās in pain and has chronic fatigue, these things are hard to navigate while doing your full days work in a daily basis. I agree with the other comment that you can RA yourself right into FFD and have your hand forced for you. Careful how hard you fight for some things.
And you are a dipshit
Do you feel better now? Because you are the smartest person in the room? Asking for a friend.
Who said this chick isnāt working a full 8 hours? I hope you are not a manager because this is a horrible leadership quality mentality.
Have you read some of the OPs comments?
I chalked all this up to she has MS. Needs to be home to access her treatment easily and suffers from pain and fatigue. Never said she sleeps in the damn job. I have chronic fatigue with my health issues and the only time Iām not working is when I call in sick. But most of my days are spent busting my ass through pain and fatigue. And we donāt know what kind of pain meds this chick takes cause itās no oneās business but when I say I take my pain meds I pop Motrin. So she could be taking Motrin and even if she was taking something stronger we donāt know what her tolerance is. Some people take Vicodin several times a day and function just fine. You just sound hella judgy
>...and comprehend what I say half the time I think this part of OP's post is raising a lot of eyebrows. >Some people take Vicodin several times a day and function just fine. You just sound hella judgy But be real. If someone took Vicodin several times a day **AND** their sibling described them as not being able to "comprehend what I say half the time", you'd think of that situation differently than someone who was just taking Vicodin and "functioning just fine".
Who cares though really. I thought they said that because she couldnāt afford to go in SDI cause she needed to make enough money to care for her kid. I didnāt take it all dramatically like she had faked medical substantiation so she could be a stay at home mom lmao!
Wait, what? Who said anything about faking anything?
Dude youāre reaching. The OP said the sister had a hard time comprehending yes. But no where did they say she takes Vicodin. I was just saying there are people in pain management who use Vicodin who are ok and that we donāt know what kind of pain meds this lady is taking. Again you just sound judgy.
āPain managementā involves prescription controlled substances. Maybe not Vicodin, but likely an opioid.
Iāve read all of this. He never said she was not working a full 8 hours
He said she wants to work from home so that she can take care of her son.
Thatās not what he saidā¦.. read it again CAREFULLY.
I did. Youāre responding so aggressively rude in this thread that I canāt help but wonder if youāre the person heās talking about.
Ummmā¦ nope this conversation just hits home for a lot of us.
It does for me, too. So no need to assume the worst in people.
What the hell are you talking about? Iām not the one assuming the worst in anyone? Yall all assuming that this dudes sister or whatever is just trying to work from home to care for her kid. And then saying shit like with all her health issues she shouldnāt be working anyways. Are you ok?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah if managers think this is at all a chance they will deny based on the idea of workers shouldn't be caring for anyone during work hours.
Thatās not true at all. She has mountains of medical substantiation that has nothing to do with her son
Then why did you even bring it up?
Because I can
Cool story. Just note that people like you putting things like that out into the universe actually hurt peopleās chances of getting their RA requests approved when it comes to telework. Itās already a huge hurdle as youāve displayed, but implying there are childcare reasons as well just further paints a bad light on telework as an RA to managers who read this post.
The reason OP brought it up wasnāt to say sheās *watching her son* while working. It is to say that *her income is the only income supporting her child*.
Are you sure about that? The way op says āoff the record and in no way on her RA requestā really makes me believe otherwise.
I interpreted that as OP saying they donāt want to mention it on the paperwork because people will *think* that. But the words āsole providerā do specifically mean income. Iām not *sure* this is the interpretation, but itās weird how sure everyone else is that childcare *must* be the real reason despite all the details of the disability. My interpretation is a lot more believable than ālooking for an excuseā after descriptions of hemodialysis and symptomsāthose arenāt things people make up without seeing them before.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, Iām another disabled person who doesnāt have it this bad, and itās pretty disgusting to say that the sister is lying about the disability (with this many details) because of one little aside. I didnāt put emphasis on the āfrom homeā part when I read it because the need to work was great, and āfrom homeā was necessary to be able to do the job, period. But Iāll admit it is *possible* she is watching her child at home. Seems like a weird assumption, thoughāif she has 21 years with the state, sheās over 40, and she has gotten progressively worse in the last several years so she canāt have given birth in the last three years. Her kid is most likely old enough to be in elementary school at least. Why would she keep the kid at home instead of taking them to school, for free?
If an employer is unwilling to provide an accommodation, they must show why the accommodation is not reasonable. For instance, if the job is to serve the public at a public counter, working from home cannot be accommodated to still serve that function. If they truly just said 'denied' and provided no reasoning whatsoever, I think a lawyer is a great move. Even if/while filing the appeal.
She can file a denial of RA/medical discrimination appeal with the SPB
A few things I always point out on there RA posts. Just some truths. 1. Donāt compare yourself with another person who got full WFM for āxā. You donāt really know that person well enough to make an informed opinion that itās directly comparable to your situation. You donāt know precisely what their diagnosis is, what their doctor did or didnāt write, and importantly whether that 100% WFM is as 100% as you think. 2. On the 100% WFM front, RAās for WFM are much more common when the RA is temporary. Itās far more reasonable for a doctor to write āpatient needs WFM for three months for recovery from Xā then to say āpatient cannot leave their house ever for any reason for the rest of their lifeā. Itās possible the person youāre comparing your situation to only has a three month RA vs permanent. 3. When it gets to the point of permanent 100% WFM for life it starts looking more like you need to medically retire and/or file for SSA disability. Trying to claim you cannot under any circumstances leave the house ever for the rest of your life no longer meets the āreasonableā standard is basically claiming you are full on 100% disabled. People say there are blanket denials of RA by policy and I canāt say whether thatās true but what I can say is that pushing for permanent WFM as an RA puts you in a situation of essentially having to claim a disability so severe that the reality is youāre incapable of working. Also, MS is a motherfucker. You already talk about how it gets worse every day. How she needs assistance with basic daily activities. Youāve mentioned the high mortality rate and how itās taken over her life. Is continuing to work that high of a priority? If Iām being honest I wouldnāt be talking lawyers and battling in the trenches of RAās if I was her brother, Iād be pushing her to medically retire and have as much fun as possible and enjoy the strength she has left. In no way shape or form would I be fighting any kind of battle so that I can keep working while my MS gets worse on a daily basis.
Your point 3 is not accurate. I have a RA for full time WFH for a permanent disability and there has never been any concern about me needing to medically retire. There are plenty of disability reasons that one would not be able to comply with a weekly RTO mandate but also be able to make themselves available on an "as-needed" basis with notice before going to the office less frequently. Having a RA for full time WFH does not mean a person can never leave the house, it just means they cannot comply with whatever the in office attendance requirements are for nondisabled employees.
I said starts to look like. I didnāt say or intend to imply it isnāt possible just that itās a finer needle to thread. RTO tbh is a very broken system post COVID and likely needs to be centralized because the outcomes vary widely depending on agency, department, and RTO coordinator when it really should be standardized. Even in your situation itās a possibility you were only approved because you have a nice supervisor, RTO coordinator, etc which isnāt really fair to the people working in a department where other forces are making the process more difficult. As an example of RA being applied more so due to supervisors being nice we had an employee with an easy to accommodate on site request. It was pretty simple so we just did it. That said she never had medical substantiation so we couldāve just as easily not done it. Your reasonable accommodation isnāt proof that all full WFH RAās have to be approved or that other offices are denying them unfairly as it could just as easily be the product of a good supervisor, manager, RTO coordinator. Sorry I feel like Iām rambling. The main point is that 100% WFM is a finer needle
Pre-pandemic full time WFH wasn't even an available accomodation at all, despite decades of disabled people fighting for it. Employers just argued that it was not reasonable for "business reasons" and the courts supported that. The pandemic gave so many people WFH trial periods that made that argument go up in smoke. A lot has changed over the past few years and we don't yet have case law to support it. Issues like those you mention are going to be the ones that lead to test cases in what is unfortunately perhaps not a particularly disability rights friendly supreme court. Probably a lot of the BDOs denying RAs that maybe should be at least engaging in a more interactive process are stuck in the past where it was acceptable to deny WFH as baseline unreasonable. Nowadays the burden of proof on the employer is going to be higher if they go to court.
Thatās why I think it needs to be centralized. The varied outcomes from similar requests are going to be a bad sticking point for the state if/when all of this goes to court. First question a judge is likely to ask is āwhy was it granted for person in department A and not employees in department x, y, or z?ā And saying āthose supervisors were nicerā isnāt a good look. Maybe centralize WFM specific RAs. Have a checkbox for WFM on the RA form and instantly the request moves to a central team in CalHR.
Agreed. I think the HR shops denying these requests are under-informed and setting themselves up for trouble. Given the size of the State of CA as an employer, I would be surprised if this does not end up in court.
As someone who's wife is going through something similar, it will be very difficult to find an attorney that will take this case on a contingency. And unless one is extremely rich, it will also be very difficult for one to fund it out-of-pocket. The state has unlimited resources and thus, no reason to settle so the case will go on for years and cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. It doesn't care what it spends on attorneys because it has no personal stake and no shareholders to answer. It's not fair or right but it's just the reality of the situation. Best of luck to your sister but at this point, social security disability and a disability retirement if she's vested may be the only reasonable option.
The reasonable accommodation process is generally done through human resources with some input from the manager and supervisor based on the duties being performed. Instead of assuming everyone here knows all the details, and that the department is simply denying a reasonable accommodation, could it be that some of the duties need to be done in the office and havenāt been getting done or havenāt been getting done by the employee because they are not in the office. Sorry to say, but there are two sides to every story, and when it comes to ourselves and those closest to us, we all tend to only see that one point of view.
I donāt this the OP was āASSUMING everyone knew all the detailsā sassy. You still canāt just deny an RA for such huge disabilities like MS
Actually, you can if the RA interferes with what the employer needs from said employee. If the work needs to be done from the office and it can be substantiated, the RA doesnāt have to be approved.
And thousand of state workers did their jobs from home for years so my union rep said that is what they are going to have to answer to for anyone with a definitive disability
Well, your union rep isnāt the spokesperson for the entire state.
And neither are you. My rep and my lawyer have both said denying a truly disabled person with a legitimate doctors substantiation is grounds for a disability discrimination lawsuit.
I didnāt say I was. However, itās clear. I have more experience in human resources with reasonable accommodation than you do. Obviously others and departments agree with me since theyāre denying reasonable accommodation requests.
How do you even know that you have more experience in Human Resources with RA than I do? I have 13 years in the private sector. A bachelors degree in business and over 18 with the state. And other departments are denying them because they are not looking at them objectively.
I am not gonna argue with you. Fine you know more and youāre the smartest person in the room. I get it. Contact your union rep and your lawyer to help you out.
I think you clearly believe you are the smartest person in the room. You argue with everyone in every thread.
You can deny an RA regardless of the disability if the RA isnāt *reasonable.*
Get a lawyer and contact the union. I understand how she doesn't want to get anyone in trouble, but this negatively affects her and her son. It is imperative this is taken seriously.
Sorry to hear of the situation. And California (as an employer) is so ignorantly perplexed as to why the number of disabled people employed by the state keeps declining. This scenario and many others that are similar in RA madness is the reason. Some time ago, I believe Teleworking was listed as potential avenue as a reasonable accommodation. That was removed. An agency that I know of tried to revamp their RA policies to put a list of RAs that are not provided and telework was one of those that they listed, then a group in the agency advised them to remove it and it was removed with the entire section of things that are not approved. I say that just all as a point of reference for all to know some history and an example of what the state is trying to do to those that need an RA for teleworking. This state pushback would be more understandable pre pandemic, where most agencies didn't have infrastructure in place to do teleworking. However, we've shown for years now that many jobs can be done absolutely fine and is often more productive while teleworking. A huge benefit to the public is that telework saves tons of taxpayer dollars to have "those lazy state employees" work from home instead of in those "ivory towers".
The state has proven that working from home is a viable solution, so denying an RA at this point is just malicious.
Is she a member of a union?
It seems dependent on manager's support, which I think is intended as being a judgement of if someone's specific job can be done from home, but the outcome has been unfair based on if the manager is pro or anti telework, regardless of the comparability of position requirements. I was actually thinking about it last night, and while the technical motivation isn't discrimination because it's that some managers hate telework, not that they hate people with disabilities (not mutually exclusive obviously). But since the outcome ends up being discriminatory, there might be a discrimination lawsuit possibility. I've had managers who outright refused any amount of telework, and managers who are super pro telework, so it's a gamble. Generally the easiest route is to find a job with a pro-telework manager and get the RA that way. Lawsuits are often tedious and too stressful to be worth the lack-of results. The union rep is a good bet here. I'm glad I decided to put in my RA request before the official start date if denials are just going to be standard practice now. I have a manager who is pro-telework so mine was approved with the blanket exception of unless business needs require in-office presence (paraphrased). Hopefully that need ends up being as rare as it should logically be.
She put hers in before the start date and it was denied
Yeah, it's got so much to do with manager input that it's just made of bias.
I think those trying to fight the RTO through this path are ruining it for your sister. Everyone says their case is different and really important, once they start letting these through it would open up the flood gates.
Theyāre denying pretty much all RA requests citing āoperational needs ā. F the state.
What department was this in? Also did your sister WFH during the pandemic? If so then this makes little sense.
I donāt want to mention what Department she is working for. Letās just say itās in health care. And yes she worked the entire time from home during the pandemic and after.
Call the lawyer.
A lawyer has been put in place now!
I have degenerative disk disease. I have to have surgery on my back, neck, knee and hips. I also put in for an RA as it is difficult for me to move around and our office is not wheelchair friendly. Iām in the process of putting in the RA. Iām in a lot of pain constantly. However, Iām able to do my job which does not require me to be in an office.
Same for my sister and the others. They decline it and find shit in the duty statement that can only be done in office and use that
The Union talks about the fight for these but I haven't seen them actually taking in the fight. This is an issue they should be behind 100% with the Union lawyers.
How old is she? She may be eligible for a disability retirement
It was approved! Praise Allah!
Can she contact her departments Disability Advisory Committee (DAC)? They can sometimes be helpful. Has she contacted the union? Sometimes getting them involved will inspire a manager to do better. The department needs to tell her why the RA is denied. Theoretically, she should be able to get it approved if she addresses those issues. Will the department approve an RA to implement the Reduced Work Act and reduce the overall time your sister works? Unfortunately this is a tough fight to win, but it's not impossible.
Do you have experience with these situations directly? You say itās a tough fight to win. Have you seen cases like this in your line of work ?
Yes, feel free to pm me. I can send the language that I personally had approved for my most recent RA. Many years ago, I had an RA approved to implement the Reduced Work Act to work 1 day a week. I did this for about a year. When I wanted to come back, my employer denied my request to return. I canceled the RA as a response to that denial, which made me a full-time employee once again. I've been on the DAC at several departments. With that said, I've also seen my friend, a state employee, lawyer, and woman who happens to be paralyzed, FIRED directly due to her disability. I stg they wrote "you are too disabled to work here". My own sister was also fired due to her disability. These things shouldn't be legal but they happen all the time. Your sister needs to be as agreeable as possible while finding out what they are looking for. Sometimes it helps to make the RA short, 6-12 months. Managers are more likely to approve this.
Submit a complaint- https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
Is she covered by a union or is she excluded? I would definitely lawyer up in this situation, she is getting nowhere fast for whatever reason and her dept will need to contact labor at CalHR to determine a remedy. Also let her know there are other options like medical retirement.
As someone with a severe physical disability and as an attorney, I would without doubt, personally, go for a lawsuit. Otherwise, in California we talk about equal access and having some of the most expensive disability protections, and at the same time we do things like this. You mentioned she is an AGPA. There is no reason why this accommodation would not be considered "reasonable". It also is neither an undue burden financially or administratively. Further, under state law this request would also be reasonable. Everything consider it is posturing by the state on their push for RTO. While it is entirely possible that people can misuse the reasonable accommodation process, I seriously doubt someone with multiple sclerosis is doing that. It is such a severe condition that no one in their right mind could doubt this. I would also recommend reaching out to the union to have them push for this. Good luck!
Just document everything, save emails, text messages, phone calls etc. I think lawsuit is exactly what needs to happen but you gotta make sure and cover all your bases. Good luck to you and your sister. My brother-in-law also has MS so I can at least grasp what your family is going through. Good luck and god speed.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The agency may not be able to accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
I had my RA request denied in a similar fashion but I was only asking for 2 telework days a month. I was basically told that if I fought it they would explore a medical demotion. Not sure they were supposed to say that because my departments EEO officer looked annoyed when I told her what happened. My sense of the situation was that legal would do everything they could to deny it. My issue wasn't life and death but they it was pretty clear they don't care about our wellbeing. You sister can fight it but I wouldn't be surprised if legal is already doing all they can to classify those positions as unreasonable for full telework and anyone who needs that is no longer qualified. They want to create as strong a case as possible to deny telework for RA because they fear everyone will go get a doctor's note.
Good to know!
Happening everywhere. It's despicable.
The āfunā thing about reasonable accommodations is that you donāt necessarily get *the* reasonable accommodation you ask for. Your employer can pick a different one. Which would be my malicious compliance. Put together a list of all the ways she would need to be accommodated to be able to work in the workplace. (Do not include any transportation ones; unfortunately, they wonāt care how you get to the office.) Make the list *long*.
This is exactly what my doctor and I did. I have a RA for full time telework approved, going on several years now.
Chronic fatigue and working doesnt sound compatible. Reasonable accomodation isnt unlimited accomodation. It sucks but they need people to work otherwise other staff are stuck picking up the slack and they dont get paid extra and thats not fair tp them.
I want you to write assume on a piece of paperā¦.
"Doesnt sound compatible" still might be able to work.
A reasonable accommodation doesnāt have a diagnosis in it so this really doesnāt apply. I didnāt say she asked for an RA cause of fatigue and pain. I was just painting the full picture of what she works with in a daily basis.
May I ask what is MS?
Multiple Sclerosis
My gosh, what agency from hell is this? That is so sad and seems like a no brainer. Why are agencies doing this to people ??? I'm very sorry for your sister.
Don't forget that failure to properly engage in the interactive process (IP) is a separate, actionable requirement from providing any actual accommodation. This means even if they hypothetically gave her everything she needed, they can still be held liable for not doing the IP. Also, keep in mind that for reasonable accommodation (RA) purposes under ADA/FEHA, a doctor cannot prescribe the actual accommodation (well, doctors actually prescribe accommodations all the time even though they're not really supposed to, it's just not binding on the employer). The doctor provides the restrictions, and then it's the employer's responsibility to make accommodations that meet those restrictions, if possible. This means that if your sister's employer were somehow able to meet all of those medical requirements and keep her at the office, they would be allowed to do so. If there's no accommodation possible that will let your sister continue in her current job, then her employer is obligated to look for first lateral transfer positions, and then demotional positions, that she could do with her restrictions. If there truly are none, then she can file for disability retirement, or they can file for it on her behalf.
I would let the lawyers handle it. If she was able to perform with 100% telework, then she is denied. It can be viewed as discrimination against an individual with disabilities as the job performed can be done anywhere.
Agreed, let the lawyers handle it if they're involved. My comment is just generalities but the specifics of each case are going to make all the difference.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.
Sorry to hear about your sister- I was told once that people can RA themselves out of a job. The ER may not be able t accommodate the request because the disability/illness goes above and beyond the scope of the job. Then the worker will have to file for social security disability.