I'm a week late with this follow-up. (Sorry.)
Two weeks ago, I posted about an employee (fictionally named "Zoey") who had a peanut allergy. After she asked a peanut-butter-loving co-worker ("Addison") to be considerate, Zoey found a big glob of peanut butter smeared under her desk, which caused her to get sick. Addison denied being responsible.
To recap from last time:
*I said I would fire Addison if I determined that she did it out of meanness.
*I said I'd give a final warning to Addison if I determined the she did it as a "test" because she didn't believe Zoey really had a peanut allergy. (I also said that I thought it would be legal for an stricter employer to terminate Addison.)
*I said if Addison's workplace nemesis, Mildred, did it to get Addison in trouble, I'd fire Mildred.
*I said I'd fire Zoey if it turned out that Zoey herself did it, just to make a scene in the office and to get Addison in trouble.
What I did not say is how the employer should determine which of these things occurred. Or whether it was a complete accident -- for example, the night before the incident, a member of the company's cleaning crew took a dinner break and was eating his PB&J sandwich under Zoey's desk (his favorite spot) for privacy, got a glob of peanut butter on his hand, realized he had forgotten to pack a napkin that night, and wiped his hand off under Zoey's desk because it was less uncouth than licking the peanut butter off his hand and anyway he'll clean it up tomorrow night, having no idea that Zoey had a peanut allergy and might go into anaphylactic shock.
It could happen.
So, anyway, you are Zoey's and Addison's supervisor, and you don't know what happened, and Zoey is calling for Addison to be fired, and Addison is adamantly denying that she is the culprit, and Mildred is off to the side, smug and smirking, and the cleaning crew guy is whistling a happy tune and changing his vacuum cleaner bag before it's time to come to work, not suspecting that anything is wrong.
- Confirm that Zoey does have a severe peanut allergy. As I noted last time, there is reason to believe that her actual medical condition may not be as severe as she thinks it is because medical authorities say it is unusual for peanut butter "exposure" to cause an allergic reaction. Peanut butter consumption, yes. "Breathing" peanut butter, maybe not. Specifically ask her to have her doctor confirm that just being in the vicinity of peanut butter causes her to have these symptoms. What follows is based on the assumption that the doctor does confirm Zoey's condition.
- Get the details about the incident from Zoey -- time of day that she started feeling symptoms and discovered the glob under her desk. Since the office is small, ask her whether anyone would have been able to see what happened. Take names.
- Meet with Addison. Let her talk about the whole peanut butter controversy. How does she feel about it? Does she believe that peanut allergies are real? Is she skeptical of Zoey? Why? After you get a read on her general attitude about Zoey's peanut allergy, then ask for details of her whereabouts the day before and day of the "glob" incident. If she says she wasn't anywhere near Zoey's desk, ask her for names of employees or others who might be able to corroborate.
- Meet with all of the witnesses identified by Zoey and Addison, and follow up on any leads that the witnesses provide. Find out whether they saw anything unusual, but also ask whether they've ever heard discussions in the workplace about Zoey's peanut allergy. If they have, get as much detail as you can.
- I'm kind of joking about the cleaning guy, but I'm kind of not. Figure out who might have been in Zoey's cubicle besides her co-workers. Do you have a cleaning crew that comes in at night? How about repair people? IT people performing system maintenance after hours? If you can't determine whether a co-worker did it, you might want to talk to the contract workers and find out whether anything happened while they were there.
- I'm assuming a small office probably doesn't have any type of video surveillance cameras. But do check and make sure about that. If you have video cameras, you might be able to definitively determine who did it.
- Call a meeting of the employees. Explain to them that peanut allergies are real and that we have to be considerate of each other. Explain that "sabotaging" co-workers with substances that cause them to become physically ill is "harassment" under company policy as well as a rotten thing to do and will result in immediate termination of employment. Tell them that you will be monitoring the situation closely. Document the fact that you had this meeting and what you discussed.
- Be alert for any suspicious activity in Zoey's work area, like co-workers lingering there when she's not around, or - if you're really lucky - reaching under her desk when they don't think anyone is watching.
- Thank Zoey for coming forward and ask her to let you know if there are any other problems.
- Make sure that your work and cleaning crews know that you have an employee with a severe peanut allergy. If they eat while they're at work, make sure they don't eat peanut products in your suite.
- Consider defusing tensions by creating a nice "separated" eating area where co-workers may be able to eat what they want without causing Zoey any problems. In the warmer months, you may be able to set up an outdoor picnic table. Be open to other constructive suggestions from the co-workers and Zoey. Discourage employees from eating at their desks (that's an FLSA issue anyway), and do not let them eat peanut products at their desks.
- Consider moving a co-worker whom you and Zoey both trust close to Zoey's desk so that the co-worker can keep an eye on things when Zoey has to get up and move around. Do not appoint Addison or Mildred for this task.
Is all of this overkill? "Better safe than sorry" is more like it. Deliberately causing a person with allergies to get sick is arguably disability-based harassment that could get your company into legal trouble. (As if having employees send a co-worker to the hospital isn't enough of a concern in itself.)
BONUS: The above (without the peanuts) is a good protocol to follow if you ever find anonymous racial or sexually offensive graffiti in the workplace.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010