Legality of calling prosthetic limbs unprofessional or prohibiting an employee from "showing" a prosthetic or it's outline under the dress code? (Virgina)

Zanctmao · 16時間前

Yeah, no. This is a hall of fame level stupid decision. Plaintiff's attorneys would line up around the block for the opportunity to represent this woman. If this business relied in any way on working with the public their reputation would go up in smoke, and they'd be subject to discipline by the EEOC.

Essentially this policy is: "People with disabilities, specifically disabilities that are associated with recent military service, are icky and we don't want to see them. We'd also like our black employees to wear a lot of caked on white makeup if possible so they look less black."

migrainevision · 15時間前

NAL but I wrote my PhD dissertation on corporate policy and discrimination. You'd be amazed what dumb ass policies are dreamed up by people who have no idea what they're doing. This is a dream case and if we're lucky enough your employer will be so stupid they'll let it go to court and they'll get to be featured in someone else's dissertation.

JadieRose · 16時間前

I commented on the first post as well - this is definitely illegal. I cannot believe an employer would be this dumb as to put something like this in writing.

wintremute · 15時間前

I'm going to assume that no one in HR has had any input on this? Because it's nuclear waste level toxic. They're singling out and actively discriminating against a disabled combat veteran for being disabled. I'd bet there are some powerful politicians that represent her that would be quite interested to know about this. She should drop a dime or two.

15時間前

[removed]

here-we-stand · 15時間前

If she gets fired tomorrow she'll have what can only be described as a slam-dunk case.

Out of morbid curiosity, does the board you mentioned not contain any HR people, or anyone with a firm grip on reality for that matter? For the sake of your friend's employment, I'm hoping management rectifies this asininity before they become known as the company that fired a vet for having a prosthesis.

Grimsterr · 15時間前

So is she raffling off who gets to represent her? Lawyers would be willing to put HER on retainer just to get their hands on this juicy peach of a case.

This is the very textbook (not that I've ever read a law textbook) of why the EEOC exists and is so illegal.

RealPutin · 16時間前

NAL, If that dress code applied to everybody and covered all limbs, then the employer would be good to go.

Specifically for someone with prosthetic limbs? That's messed up and quite discriminatory. EEOC would love to see this.

I'll go law hunting to see if I can find something, actual lawyers please correct me

Valendr0s · 14時間前

Sir, that lawsuit would be over so quickly, I'd advise you to bring cab fare to the courthouse, since Dr Turk would be driving your Beemer home to his place.

Draqur · 16時間前

Is there some reason for this? Is she being rude somehow involving her prosthetic leg? Did this new rule come out of no where?

Was she detaching it and beating people with it? Was she storing food in it, and it was getting moldy? Perhaps housing a family of squirrels? Does it make cool (potentially annoying to non-fun people) noises like transformer robots?

This is such an absurd rule to be created out of the blue, there must be some backstory to it.

bobbogreeno · 13時間前

Check out this link. They WILL take action. DOJ doesn't screw around with civil rights issues. https://www.ada.gov/complaint/

G19classified · 10時間前

You're setting yourself up for a Title VII lawsuit. You'd lose bad. And you'd pay out a huge judgment. Lots of sympathy from a jury for war heroes (for good reason).

If the employee requests an accommodation to the dress code, you have to grant it. If you fire them for asking for one. That's called retaliation. Quit while you're behind.

Btw I'm a defense attorney who handles cases like this. I hope your company has a huge liability policy. Otherwise your company is going to pay out a lot in legal fees for the aforementioned Title VII case in addition to the judgment and the employee's attorney's fees.

Copper_Dome · 14時間前

I live in Virginia. I wouldn't mind a PM with the name of the company as I'd love to do my best to not patronize them.

MightyMackinac · 11時間前

OP, please for the love all that is good, please give us an update! I want to read a whole story about how she took this to court, the lawyer has a big ass grin on his face, the owner gets his face drug into the mud, and the company goes under.

That would be one of the best justice stories I could ever possibly read.

andpassword · 15時間前

You know you're in for a laugh when they pluralize "employees" with an apostrophe.

skybluebear · 13時間前

OP what is your role in this? Are you HR or another employee at the company? Are you the supervisor for the woman with the prosthetic?

tornadoRadar · 10時間前

I seriously can't even becky. Like oh my god. look at that settlement. It's just so big.

we_got_caught · 16時間前

NAL but sounds discriminatory toward people with prosthetics.

Loreki · 12時間前

Whatever she does, the suit over this policy feels like it might be worth more than a few years salary. She should definitely continue to ignore them, wear a skirt if she chooses and frankly hope to be fired.

Edit: she should not rock the boat on this point or summon politicians. You don't get any money for making a public stink!

hasdrupal · 8時間前

Wouldn't that violate the Americans with disabilities act? Not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's illegal, or close to it.

PvtSherlockObvious · 10時間前

To paraphrase a wise attorney: Your boss could certainly do that. Of course, he'd be somewhat vulnerable from a legal standpoint. Specifically, that lawsuit would be over so quickly, I'd advise him to bring cab fare to the courthouse, since (employee name) would be driving his car home to her place that night.

I-do-not-like-this · 13時間前

I don't have any advice, I just wanted to say I can't imagine how someone would feel uncomfortable around someone with a prosthetic limb; that shit looks metal.

luckyAZ · 9時間前

Sounds like the perfect way to lose all clients and the business itself. Surely they made this policy in order to bankrupt and ostracize the business. They must have been tired of running it and wanted to close it due to "outside influence." Any other explanation would mean the owners and operators are soulless fucks who will be judged in the public opinion forum, found guilty and set out to rot.

demyst · 10時間前

[removed]

KrasnyRed5 · 9時間前

I think you should let if go so this woman doesn't have to work again. The downside of course is you might lose you job once she wins a few million from the company.

Agarax · 9時間前

OP, I demand follow up when there is hasty backpedaling.

obTxO · 9時間前

I feel like you need to name and shame this company. I, for one, want to make sure no money I spend furthers the career of the asshat who came up with this policy.

legaladvice

調停者