work and diabetes...

[vulnerable26]

Just a quick question. My company states that there is to be no candy, gum ect while we are at work. My manager seems to think that has to apply for a diabetic. She refuses to allow us diabetics (both of us are on insulin) to have a hard candy if our sugar happens to fall.

Also, she refuses to let us up to get a drink from the break room in that case. If we get caught with a hard candy we get written up, even if we have proof our sugar is low. We even have doctors note stating we are type one and may need to have a piece of hard candy or may need to get a soda.

Basically her reply was "this is company policy if you don't like it you can go else where" Is this illegal? Can I contact anyone over this. I really do like my job and would hate to see me get fired or have to find a new job over a piece of hard candy!

[spinnb8]

definitely illegal,
you would have a case at an employment discrimination law firm.
and these are easy cases for them to win.
good luck.

[princesslinda]

I'd keep some of the glucose tablets in my desk or purse, within reach, and take them if needed, just as you'd take an antiacid for upset stomach or an aspirin/tylenol for a headache.

Also, can you get up and go to the bathroom at any time? If so, keep a bottled soda in your purse and just grab your purse and go to the bathroom if you're low.

Its hard to believe a company would be so rigid as to not allow a diabetic to have hard candy, but seems the glucose tablets would qualify as food.

[bryan42]

whats that smell???....sniff, sniff.........smells like lawsuit :) :mad:

[morrisma]

Illegal, immoral and stupid. The supervisor should be reported to protect the company's interest in not getting sued.
Mike

[jazzbo]

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to make "reasonable" accommodations. While not all diabetics would fit the definition of "disabled," you could certainly ask for the accommodation. An employment law firm might draft a letter for you to give to your manager. That letter should also include something from your doctor describing what accommodation is necessary. A copy of the letter should go to someone higher up the chain of command. If your employer does not agree to this accommodation you will have a much better case for employment discrimination. Also, you could contact the New Jersey Human Rights Commission, but I would try the letter first. Feel free to email me privately if you have any questions. I'm not an attorney, but I work in the employment law field. Good luck.
Best wishes for your good health.

[Cormac_Doyle]

Hehe ... I can hear the lawyers salviating over this one already

There is no chance in **** that your employer can get away with this.

Diabetes is a registered disability, and all employers must make "all reasonable accommodation" to help their disabled customers and employees. Allowing you to have glucose tabs or drinks in case you swing low is an absolute necessity, much like wheelchair-accessible toilets.

get your union rep or lawyer on this one ...

[mcgriff]

I would make him write you up. I'm not a litigious person, but in this case I wouldn't hesitate to sue the heck out of them. Once you are written up you have something in writing. Heck, I would push all the way to termination. After that you could make the news ;)

[Eddy]

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but you might also look into "endangerment" and "negligence".

[Holly]

OMG! Does that archaic company policy need changing. I'd make sure that a copy of your MD's note is in your file and be prepared to act if need be. The alternative of ignoring your carb count to avoid a low just has too much potential for long term side effects. Would they rather pay out a disability if you don't keep good control and experience those wonderful side effects? This management needs education. I'm sure if the supervisor had DM things would change quickly.

[jazzbo]

Here's a link to what the EEOC says about diabetes:

Questions and Answers About Diabetes in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/diabetes.html)

I agree wholeheartedly with Mcgriff. Document everything. That's the key to success. Disability discrimination lawsuits are not looked upon favorably by juries. Most employers will settle these cases way before getting to the courtroom, where a jury can punish them with multi-million dollar judgments.

Also, employers may not retaliate against employees for asking for accommodation.

If you can't afford an employment lawyer (and they are expensive), try contacting your local bar association and ask if they have a program where lawyers will provide services at a reduced rate or for free.

Best wishes for your good health.

[Eddy]

The Age of Legal Advocacy for Diabetes (http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/99v12n4/pg214.htm)

From

Thunderstone: Search: workplace ADA (http://www.adata.org/scripts/texis.exe/webinator/search/context.html?query=workplace+ADA&pr=dlkmstest&prox=sentence&rorder=750&rprox=750&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=1&order=r&cq=&cmd=context&id=461d29267) :


DOJ investigated complaints it had received that Clear Channel Entertainment refused to allow individuals with diabetes to keep their diabetic supplies with them inside the concert venue. 7. As a result of this investigation, DOJ concluded that Clear Channel Entertainment's policy on access of medication into venues dated April 3, 2000 (the "April 2000 Policy"), which prohibits patrons from taking any syringes or needles used for medical purposes, including needles used for insulin and lancets for testing blood, into the concert venue unless secured in a first aid room, discriminates against individuals with disabilities in violation of the ADA. DOJ also concluded that Clear Channel Entertainment's April 2000 Policy prohibiting diabetics from bringing food inside the venue unless secured in a first aid room violates the ADA.


This link cites a few relevant sections of U.S.C.:

Oklahoma Bar Association (http://www.okbar.org/obj/articles_06/031106cremin.htm)

[davef]

I'm neither a lawyer nor do I work in the USA, so I can't offer legal advice.

I would think Linda's approach of having a glucose tablet in your purse would be an idea. The other thought I had was to get an empty medicine bottle (type pharmacists dispense liquid anti-biotics in) and fill it with orange juice, if you have a friendly pharmacist they might be willing to print a label with your name and something like "Ascoribic acid solution, use as required" for the bottle.

However, I think it would be appropriate for you to speak either with the supervisor's manager or the human resources manager, your requests are not unreasonable, especially if you say that you want to have glucose tablets (use the word tablet) on hand and not necessarily candy.

Just my rambling thoughts,

[patricia52]

I am not one to always think lawsuit. I would try to solve this in a reasonable way. I think I would go over my supervisors head. Management may not be aware that the supervisor is so rigid. Or perhaps they have an oudated personnel policy that needs to be updated. I would give them a chance to rectify this matter. If I did not get satisfaction, I would continue to take care of myself and if I got wrote up, I would then find an attorney.

[mortis505]

Go to the link that jazzbo provided and print out everything. Then go to your supervisors boss, and ask him/her for reasonable accommodations, if they say no go to his/her boss, all the way to the top if you have to, and continue asking for reasonable accommodations antul you get a yes, or until the top individual says no. Once that individual says no, then drop the printouts on their desk and inform them that they can either allow you and the other worker to have the necessary accommodations, or follow up with a lawyer. Then sit their and wait. Either they are going to give in or terminate you. If termination, then contact the Labor Board, the EEOC, and the ADA.

Just my 0.02

[desperado]

I'm type 2 ands on insulin. I have ben at the counter waiting on customers alone and no other person around to help. I had a low one time . I was sinking to the floor the customer got help for me. I work for my husband so needless to say yes we keep a jar of hard candy in almost every part of the building now.
BUt if you have to "fake a restroom visit" I would do what it takes to keep you okay.
I like the idea of using an empty prescription bottle maybe to put your candies in . I believe it was on this board a long time ago some one said they carried Sweet Tarts in the tiny rolls . Those really look like pills

[GinaLynn]

I have heard some out there things but this tops them all:banghead:

I have been a type 1 diabetic for 18 years, and i have never had the troubles or encountered the stupid stuff that you are dealing with. ...if i were you i wouldn't abid by the "policy" and would worry about taking care of myself! If you would get fired or written up or have anything that is held against you because of low blood sugar- I am sorry but that is beyond discrimination but is just plain stupidity- and i would have a lawyer on hand!

Plain and simple if you don't address your low blood sugars you can't do your job- therefore you would get written up because you are not doing your job! I am very fired up right now :mad:

I wish you all the best and keep us updated on the situation:o

[Subby]

I saw that footage tonight of a woman collapsing in a hospital waiting room somewhere in the US and the other waiting people, security guards etc, ignoring her prostrate on the ground. She died after they eventually bothered to check on her - too late, according to the report. It was just horrible, it shows you can be in the wrong place at wrong time, and the unthinkable can happen.

It made me think of this issue and thread. Always, keep what you need on you, and I would be concerned that finding ways to hide it/make it look like something else is asking for trouble (eg, to be taken as something else, to be thrown out, to be too hard to arrange sometimes, etc).

Follow the great bits of advice advice in this thread to clear this problem up in your workplace, its unethical and illegal and most importantly, dangerous to your life. The higher management should see sense, if no luck, get another job, it's too serious to just go along "being the victim". It's not just inconvenient, it's deadly.

[NJL]

Write two letters. One to your HR representative or equivalent and your State Attorney General describing the situation, while including as many specific events as possible. (Dates, places, others present etc...) Then confront your boss when you know the letters have arrived in the right places. You should notice an immediate attitude adjustment at the very least.

[UpNorth]

Sounds like you and your fellow T1 workmate should take that policy and shove it up the managers behind! That policy is dangerous for both of you! A diabetic on insulin should ALWAYS be allowed to have something sweet around in case of a low!

[DanG]

I don't like all the lawsuit talk - lawsuits rarely accomplish what you desire. Lawsuits usually end up doing harm in many other ways. Take this attitude - it is your health, you gotta manage it, don't expect the employer to make special rules for anyone, or else they will need to make special rules for everyone.

I would just abide the rules of the company - in appearance (you gotta do whatcha gotta do - just don't broadcast it). If/when you need something, don't be blatant about your "fix" of the low that occurs. Just manage it like anyone else. I never let anyone know anything - not in 33 years. It is my problem and I don't expect anyone else to handle it for me. If/when I am gone to a very low hypo - well, then it may become someone else's problem. That has only happened at home, at night, so far... except for this incident...

One time I was hiking Long's Peak - a 14,000 ft peak in Colorado. I was thru the keyhole just below the summit and stopped and ate as much of my trail mix as I could get into me - in a hurry. Many other hikers passed by - I didn't feel like trying to make the summit, as I was feeling a bit frightened about the reality that I was in a condition that I could have fallen off the edge where I was resting and gobbled food - OOPS!!. That was 28 years ago - still here to tell the story, thankfully. I told nobody. I merely handled it as well as I could. Wonderful insulins those days - beef/pork lente... ahh... and testape.

Today - sometimes in the morning when I get to work, I see the white spots of death - low approaching. I break away from what I am doing and put some sugar in my coffee and be calm. White spots disappear, and then I can eat some more healthy food to assist in bringing the low back to where I need to be for working in an office.

Keep any "fix" needed hidden from the super. Don't push the issue - it isn't worth all the hassle you may cause yourself. If you don't like the rules - the super is correct - find a different place to earn money. Sure, the laws are on your side - you think. Test them - and you will find out, the rules are written for the people who own the money and do you no good in the end. Stay inside the rules - don't be testy with them.

[patricia52]

**** is correct. Laws usually protect those who have the most money and the least to lose. Try to stay within their rules atleast until you can find a better place to work. When you find that better job, you want them to give you a good letter of recommendation. While food and drink are prohibited, Glucose Tablets and Glucose Gel are consided medicine and use of either would not be interpreted as breaking the rules no more than chewing a Tums. Also if you were in an accident and someone found these items in your possession it might save your life. I carry Glucose Tabs in my purse. Even my granddaught knows what they are for.

[xMenace]

Get as much as you can in writing and take notes whenever something happens or is said.

Get yourself written up. It's best to get something on paper with signatures.

Your lawyer will have a field day with documented evidence.

Look for a new employer too. The 19th century is long gone!

[lelggren]

What would be really great is if you and the other person that you work with that also has D, could get together and make this case against your work if they don't start to comply. I can see if you are chompin' on a hard candy in front of customers/clients, but it seems like you are willing to respect them if they are willing to respect the fact that you don't want to pass out at work just because they are against treating low bg's.....Ask them if it is a company policy to not get sued.

Best of luck with this! I strongly encourage you to look into another form of employment. Really, if you were to sue them and then still work for them, your life would not be pleasant, I have the feeling. So, either way, I would say that now is a perfect time for a job search.

[Alice]

This sounds like the supervisor in question lacks knowledge...at least in this area. I would report this to not only the next superior in line, but to a total of 3 levels minimum. I've found that many levels protect each other...or try to brush what they fear is a lawsuit between the cracks.

By reporting to several levels of management, you are "educating" more people. Explain that you are not asking for any special treatment that is not beyond that of any other diabetic who is working hard and doing a good job.

I'd also probably try to find a new job with a more "progressive" company. But, that's my own opinion of working for boobs.

[Phonelady61]

I don't like all the lawsuit talk - lawsuits rarely accomplish what you desire. Lawsuits usually end up doing harm in many other ways. Take this attitude - it is your health, you gotta manage it, don't expect the employer to make special rules for anyone, or else they will need to make special rules for everyone.

I would just abide the rules of the company - in appearance (you gotta do whatcha gotta do - just don't broadcast it). If/when you need something, don't be blatant about your "fix" of the low that occurs. Just manage it like anyone else. I never let anyone know anything - not in 33 years. It is my problem and I don't expect anyone else to handle it for me. If/when I am gone to a very low hypo - well, then it may become someone else's problem. That has only happened at home, at night, so far... except for this incident...

One time I was hiking Long's Peak - a 14,000 ft peak in Colorado. I was thru the keyhole just below the summit and stopped and ate as much of my trail mix as I could get into me - in a hurry. Many other hikers passed by - I didn't feel like trying to make the summit, as I was feeling a bit frightened about the reality that I was in a condition that I could have fallen off the edge where I was resting and gobbled food - OOPS!!. That was 28 years ago - still here to tell the story, thankfully. I told nobody. I merely handled it as well as I could. Wonderful insulins those days - beef/pork lente... ahh... and testape.

Today - sometimes in the morning when I get to work, I see the white spots of death - low approaching. I break away from what I am doing and put some sugar in my coffee and be calm. White spots disappear, and then I can eat some more healthy food to assist in bringing the low back to where I need to be for working in an office.

Keep any "fix" needed hidden from the super. Don't push the issue - it isn't worth all the hassle you may cause yourself. If you don't like the rules - the super is correct - find a different place to earn money. Sure, the laws are on your side - you think. Test them - and you will find out, the rules are written for the people who own the money and do you no good in the end. Stay inside the rules - don't be testy with them.

Im sorry dan but if we all took your attitude nothing would ever get accomplished and we would still be living in the dark ages !!! Let me ask dan are you a supervisor for a company ? you sound like someone who is afraid to speak up at where you work . I m sorry but I am italian and irish and I learned long ago ,if you dont knock some doors down ,they dont come down . The only reason we have rights as employees is because someone else was not afraid to speak up and change things . The squeeky wheel gets the grease so to speak . Make noise that is the only way you will get heard .

[DanG]

I m sorry but I am italian and irish

I'm with you - except for the italian - I'm scotch and irish.

And, no - I certainly am not a supervisor. Common everyday worker guy - in a design office. But, I don't ever take an attitude of "rights" anywhere. Rights are given, if given - but to demand "rights" only makes enemies. I agree with others - I have the right to leave where I work - but I don't have the right to make my place of employment what I think it should be - not unless it is my place, i.e. I am not a mere worker, I am an owner.

So, I hide my diabetes as much as possible - big deal. It is not my prized t-shirt or necktie - it is a condition I live with. So, I live with it. To make others live with my diabetes is not my right to expect - so I don't expect it. I live with it like an ugliness - I hide it from as many people as possible - but I have a large family.

[vulnerable26]

I don't like all the lawsuit talk - lawsuits rarely accomplish what you desire. Lawsuits usually end up doing harm in many other ways. Take this attitude - it is your health, you gotta manage it, don't expect the employer to make special rules for anyone, or else they will need to make special rules for everyone.

I would just abide the rules of the company - in appearance (you gotta do whatcha gotta do - just don't broadcast it). If/when you need something, don't be blatant about your "fix" of the low that occurs. Just manage it like anyone else. I never let anyone know anything - not in 33 years. It is my problem and I don't expect anyone else to handle it for me. If/when I am gone to a very low hypo - well, then it may become someone else's problem. That has only happened at home, at night, so far... except for this incident...

One time I was hiking Long's Peak - a 14,000 ft peak in Colorado. I was thru the keyhole just below the summit and stopped and ate as much of my trail mix as I could get into me - in a hurry. Many other hikers passed by - I didn't feel like trying to make the summit, as I was feeling a bit frightened about the reality that I was in a condition that I could have fallen off the edge where I was resting and gobbled food - OOPS!!. That was 28 years ago - still here to tell the story, thankfully. I told nobody. I merely handled it as well as I could. Wonderful insulins those days - beef/pork lente... ahh... and testape.

Today - sometimes in the morning when I get to work, I see the white spots of death - low approaching. I break away from what I am doing and put some sugar in my coffee and be calm. White spots disappear, and then I can eat some more healthy food to assist in bringing the low back to where I need to be for working in an office.

Keep any "fix" needed hidden from the super. Don't push the issue - it isn't worth all the hassle you may cause yourself. If you don't like the rules - the super is correct - find a different place to earn money. Sure, the laws are on your side - you think. Test them - and you will find out, the rules are written for the people who own the money and do you no good in the end. Stay inside the rules - don't be testy with them.

You are correct in a lot of things you said, however I am the last person that will sue over this and also I am the last one to broadcast my diabetes. I am not looking for a lawsuit, I am looking for answers...anyway..

I was recently diagnosed and missed over 20 days of work this year due to hospitalizations. My boss is aware that I am diabtic because of that, I had to take a LOA. I am still in the process of regulating my insulin, and sometimes, I have problems.

I work in an office, that does not allow you just to get up. I am a relay operator for the deaf, my job requires you to be on the floor for 2 and a half straight hours. You must have permission to get up, most of the time it is not allowed. A simple bathroom break counts against me. Prior to diagnosis, I was called into the office and written up because I used the bathroom too many times.

We have supervisor constantly patrolling the floor, so anything I sneak, whether it be glucose tab or a drink will get me written up.

This was the point of my post. I thought there were certain rules that employers had to follow. I am not asking for special rights or accommodations.

I am in the process of looking for a new job but where I live it is very difficult. So in the mean time I was just asking my rights. And I will fight them, and if I get fired, so be it at least I tired. Especially for the other diabetics at my work place.

[Alice]

Okay...the gum...I agree with that one!

I bet you are a great employee. But, this one is going to need a little more tweaking for you to stay in this job. I don't see any reason why they would want to lose a good employee. You shouldn't have to find a new job. It is very clear. You may need to get help from an ADA advocate...if there is such a thing. Seeing that there are two of you in this boat...I'm a little worried for your safety in that environment.

[pegasus]

So in the mean time I was just asking my rights. And I will fight them, and if I get fired, so be it at least I tired. Especially for the other diabetics at my work place.

As others have said, you do have rights and they are spelled out in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act--jazzbo gave you a link that details them--which requires employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for people, including diabetics.

The question being addressed here then is less are there rules, but what must you do to invoke them in the best way possible for you and your coworker, and any other diabetics who work there. Your fighting spirit is lovely, and should stand you in good stead.

There is an organization in New York that's very familiar with these federal issues (so the differences in state law won't matter): the Center for the Independence of the Disabled of New York [/url]. They can give you a great deal of free advice.

Second, New Jersey has a department of human rights that should be helpful with this [url=http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/commission.html);] (http://www.cidny.org)). NJ also certainly has a department of labor, with someone responsible for issues like this. I would check on the state of new jersey website and ask them. The New Jersey chapter of the ACLU might be helpful as well, if only to ask questions, whether you decide to bring a lawsuit or not.

The questions of, do we have workplace rights and if, when, and if so how, litigation should be used are big ones that we've talked about elsewhere on this forum. You've asked if you have rights, and you do. Invoking them with lawyers is best always used as a last resort, but the reason they're called lawyers is because they're here to help implement the law. Your rights.

It's breathtakingly ironic that your employer provides a service--an accommodation--for the deaf.

I'm also worried about your safety; please follow up on some of the suggestions you got on this thread--it really is a serious matter of your health and safety. You've only been diabetic a short while, and you have much to learn (and have found a great place here to learn it). Do take the advice in this thread as soon as you can.

Edit
PS: I am right across the river, so if you want to PM me for some more contacts, I'd be glad to help.

[mortis505]

From Sections 8-11 of the EEOC FAQ governing employers/employees responsibilities in the workplace.

"Accommodating Employees with Diabetes

The ADA requires employers to provide adjustments or modifications to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities unless doing so would be an undue hardship (i.e., a significant difficulty or expense). Accommodations vary depending on the needs of the individual with a disability. Not all employees with diabetes will need an accommodation or require the same accommodation.

8. What types of reasonable accommodations may employees with diabetes need?

Some employees may need one or more of the following accommodations:

* a private area to test blood sugar levels or to take insulin
* a place to rest until blood sugar levels become normal(6)
* breaks to eat or drink, take medication, or test blood sugar levels

Example: A manufacturing plant requires employees to work an eight-hour shift with just a one-hour break for lunch. An employee with diabetes needs to eat something several times a day to keep his blood sugar levels from dropping too low. Absent undue hardship, the employer could accommodate the employee by allowing him to take two 15-minute breaks each day and letting him make up the time by coming to work 15 minutes earlier and staying 15 minutes later.

* leave for treatment, recuperation, or training on managing diabetes(7)
* modified work schedule or shift change

Example: A nurse with insulin-treated diabetes rotated from working the 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift to the midnight to 8 a.m. shift. Her doctor wrote a note indicating that interferences in the nurse's sleep, eating routine, and schedule of insulin shots were making it difficult for her to manage her diabetes. Her employer eliminated her midnight rotation.

* allowing a person with diabetic neuropathy (a nerve disorder caused by diabetes) to use a stool.

Although these are some examples of the types of accommodations commonly requested by employees with diabetes, other employees may need different changes or adjustments. Employers should ask the particular employee requesting an accommodation because of his diabetes what he needs that will help him do his job. There also are extensive public and private resources to help employers identify reasonable accommodations. For example, the website for the Job Accommodation Network (Job Accommodation Network (http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/media/diabetes.html)) provides information about many types of accommodations for employees with diabetes."

"9. How does an employee with diabetes request a reasonable accommodation?

There are no "magic words" that a person has to use when requesting a reasonable accommodation. A person simply has to tell the employer that she needs an adjustment or change at work because of her diabetes.

Example: A custodian tells his supervisor that he recently has been diagnosed with diabetes and needs three days off to attend a class on how to manage the condition. This is a request for reasonable accommodation.

A request for a reasonable accommodation also can come from a family member, friend, health professional, or other representative on behalf of a person with diabetes. If the employer does not already know that an employee has diabetes, the employer can ask the employee for verification from a health care professional.

10. Does an employer have to grant every request for a reasonable accommodation?

No. An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if doing so will be an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that providing the reasonable accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense. If a requested accommodation is too difficult or expensive, an employer still would be required to determine whether there is another easier or less costly accommodation that would meet the employee's needs.

11. Is it a reasonable accommodation for an employer to make sure that an employee regularly checks her blood sugar levels and eats or takes insulin as prescribed?

No. Employers have no obligation to monitor an employee to make sure that she is keeping her diabetes under control. It may be a form of reasonable accommodation, however, to allow an employee sufficient breaks to check her blood sugar levels, eat a snack, or take medication."


Follow the link from jazzbo, print it out, highlight these sections, and simply state your case. vulnerable26, I URGE you to sit down with your supervisors, The one on the floor and her boss/bosses, and discuss this. Explain that taking just a few minutes to treat a high/low, is much better than not being allowed to treat it and the complications/costs/disruption that not being allowed to treat would cause.

[Eddy]

ADA Home Page - ada.gov - Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (http://www.ada.gov/)

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm)

Americans with Disabilities Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html)

[DanG]

All the EEOC stuff sounds very accomodating - thanks for providing us with the text - I did not go to the link jazzbo provided.

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc. I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood. I do not have much faith in people, as I are a people myself, and I know how mean and nasty I can be sometimes. Now, if I were a business owner - I can imagine I might become even more mean and nasty - the bottom line and all needs management moreso than a few workers with a special problem. So, thank you EEOC - but no thanks for me.

Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then? This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history. Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.

It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day. None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period. Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs.

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.

[Alice]

What I'm not understanding is how the "rest" of the employees are able to work under such long periods without breaks?

There are many reasons I need to use a restroom other than taking care of diabetes...that would be the least of my problems.

I still feel this is a problem with the immediate supervisor...someone upwards in the organization know full well about the laws...finding that person is the issue.

[pegasus]

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc. I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood.

That is actually the point--they're not allowed to fire you for being diabetic. Yes, sometimes employers do find other excuses, but why make it easy for them?

So, thank you EEOC -

It was actually the work of an incredible number of activists who got Congress to pass the law, finally--and Bush I to sign it!

Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then? This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history. Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.

It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day. None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period. Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs. [

No, we will not be able to manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas, but as someone who's had it for *40* years, I can tell you that having access to the meters, and now a pump, has made a tremendous difference to my health, to my quality of life, possibly--even probably--the length of my life. What's the point of progress and innovation if we permit others to force us back into the Dark Ages?

I don't know who you're referring to when you refer to people who won't "acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another," or what exactly that even means. Part of my body doesn't work well, and I have over the years acquired many tools to minimize the impact of that malfunction. My testing isn't a gamble--it's a diagnostic tool that I want to use in the best way I can. That will be different for everyone, and if, Dan, you decide not to test for a few months or years or whatever, and "gamble" that the affect of your highs and lows won't cause you harm, that's certainly your choice. Seems to me it's the *not* testing that's a gamble, not the testing.

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.

Of course his job can accommodate his diabetes. Taking 5 minutes in between calls to test and eat sugar would not diminish his ability to respond to the calls he does take. His employer just believes that he can squeeze greater "productivity" out of someone who doesn't feel well than out of someone who does. Bizarre reasoning, seems to me.

Or else, his employer wants to force him to quit rather than pay his health insurance, which seems more likely to me.

[vulnerable26]

Or else, his employer wants to force him to quit rather than pay his health insurance, which seems more likely to me.

Well it is defiantly not that because I pay for private insurance..

However, with all the links and the info provided, I will be printing that out and sharing it with my managers. I am also going to be starting the pump within a month so I am sure that will level things out a lot.

I want to thank everyone for taking the time, for all the info and advice they provided, it is greatly appreciated.

One more thing I am a female and not male, lol. Just wanted to point that out as well :T

[Eddy]

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc.


...and into a lawsuit. Perhaps you should read the relevant sections of U.S.C., and the links that Jazzbo provided.


I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood.


The mentality that one must choose between those two is incorrect.


I do not have much faith in people, as I are a people myself, and I know how mean and nasty I can be sometimes. Now, if I were a business owner - I can imagine I might become even more mean and nasty - the bottom line and all needs management moreso than a few workers with a special problem. So, thank you EEOC - but no thanks for me.


You incorrectly assume that any accommodations would present undue hardships. Furthermore, if you read the law, you will note that the burden of proof lies with the one claiming undue hardship.


Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then?


I'm sorry, but this isn't twenty years ago. This isn't about the norm back then. This is about now.

Let's think back fifty years ago. Segregation was the norm. Must be okay for now, then, eh?


This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history.


I'm glad for him, too. The thing is: One example does not prove any overall trend. Some people live past 100, too. Does that mean everyone can expect to?

In another thread, people were tossing about the figure "life expectancy of diabetics 15 years shorter than non-diabetics". That's what we call a trend instead of an isolated data point.


Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.


Some of us can't run high. And documented medical facts demonstrate the hazards of high blood sugar. Ergo, "just run high to avoid going low" increases one's exposure to irreversible and severe long-term health risks as a direct result of failure to accommodate.

Guess what? If I hear about this going to court, there might just be an amicus curiae brief including information from the above paragraph... and then some!


It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day.


Would you also argue that frequent balancing of checkbook, examination of credit card records for fraud, and checking one's credit history is frivolous? i.e., do you suggest that one "just keep a little extra money handy"?


None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period.


And none of us will ever be the world's richest person. Therefore, should we not strive to make as much money as we can? Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your brand of logic.


Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs.


Again, you're creating a false bifurcation.

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.


IANAL, but that's not the way I'm reading things:


Sec. 12112. Discrimination

(a) General rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

(b) Construction

As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term "discriminate" includes

(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;

(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);

(3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration

(A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability;

(B) that perpetuates the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;

(4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association;

(5)

(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or

(B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;

(6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and

(7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).


As I've alluded to above: Please explain to me how allowing snacks would pose an undue hardship.

Moreover, I argue that a ruling in favor of vulnerable26's employer's policy would set a dangerous precedent, creating a chilling effect against exercising the very protections that the ADA is intended to provide.

[Lizzie G]

I don't like all the lawsuit talk - lawsuits rarely accomplish what you desire. Lawsuits usually end up doing harm in many other ways. Take this attitude - it is your health, you gotta manage it, don't expect the employer to make special rules for anyone, or else they will need to make special rules for everyone.

I would just abide the rules of the company - in appearance (you gotta do whatcha gotta do - just don't broadcast it). If/when you need something, don't be blatant about your "fix" of the low that occurs. Just manage it like anyone else. I never let anyone know anything - not in 33 years. It is my problem and I don't expect anyone else to handle it for me. If/when I am gone to a very low hypo - well, then it may become someone else's problem. That has only happened at home, at night, so far... except for this incident...

One time I was hiking Long's Peak - a 14,000 ft peak in Colorado. I was thru the keyhole just below the summit and stopped and ate as much of my trail mix as I could get into me - in a hurry. Many other hikers passed by - I didn't feel like trying to make the summit, as I was feeling a bit frightened about the reality that I was in a condition that I could have fallen off the edge where I was resting and gobbled food - OOPS!!. That was 28 years ago - still here to tell the story, thankfully. I told nobody. I merely handled it as well as I could. Wonderful insulins those days - beef/pork lente... ahh... and testape.

Today - sometimes in the morning when I get to work, I see the white spots of death - low approaching. I break away from what I am doing and put some sugar in my coffee and be calm. White spots disappear, and then I can eat some more healthy food to assist in bringing the low back to where I need to be for working in an office.

Keep any "fix" needed hidden from the super. Don't push the issue - it isn't worth all the hassle you may cause yourself. If you don't like the rules - the super is correct - find a different place to earn money. Sure, the laws are on your side - you think. Test them - and you will find out, the rules are written for the people who own the money and do you no good in the end. Stay inside the rules - don't be testy with them.


I disagree with almost everything you say. Whilst lawsuits are stressful and for the most part conflict can be resolved in a more constructive way that has a positive outcome for everyone involved, there are times when individuals do need to use the law to protect their basic human rights. it is about recognising the point at which you have done everything you reasonably can to rectify the situation, and then to take the appropriate advice.

Now i do not know the intricacies of employment law in the US, but as I hinted at above I would imagine that in a civilised country such as the US that it would be considered your basic human right to have free access to what is not actually equivalent to banned candies, but in your instance a lifesaving medicine. It is very frustrating to deal with this level of ignorance, but I was thinking what might help is if you have low treatments like those nasty 'hypostop' gels rather than the candies (that is a UK thing you probably have similar) so that there is a clear distinction between it being a treat and being a drug? I know you shouldnt have to do these things but hey, life can be tough and sometimes we have to do things that annoy us. perhaps if you did this and your supervisor began to understand why you need the hypostop gel or whatever, then the next step would be to explain how candies would perform the exact same function and are a lot cheaper for you. im not condoning the actions of this supervisor at all, she/he sounds like a total idiot, but im just saving give her a chance to be educated/respect your rights, then if she doesnt accomodate your requirements you have an even stronger legal case and dont hesitate to take the advice you need.

as regards diabetes being a private battle etc etc, i really cant believe that on a forum where we are all trying to help each other deal with this debilitating disease, that someone is actually spouting this out-dated garbage. sorry Dan G but I feel quite strongly and really cannot respect your opinion on this. i am fairly private about my diabetes and dont make a big deal of it; if im having issues at work i will sit quietly and deal with it, or go home. however, my team know about my diabetes (it was hardly avoidable due to the timeframe of my illness and diagnosis!) and for safety's sake they know where the jar of honey is in my bottom drawer. and if i have a 'weird' day i will say to andrew 'andrew, having a 'weird' day having to take a lot of extra insulin' and he will just be that little bit aware. and in the pool when im training. another friend knows about my diabetes and what to do. for the past year i had no problems whatsover and a couple of weeks ago i was swimming with a kickboard with my face above water. i swum to the end of the pool and my friend asked me if i was alright (apparently the colour had drained from my face). i had no idea i was low and when he spoke to me it was like i was in a dream. i take glucose when i am swimming and i have very carefully calibrated doses which normally serve me well, yet sometimes something random happens and the science doesnt work. in this instance my friend helped me out of the pool and gave me some glucose which i was only just able to take in. i was extremely embarassed by this incident as i am hugely careful to prevent such things; but at the end of the day im relieved that i had swallowed my pride and admitted my weakness so that someone could help me when i needed it. if i HADNT have told him imagine the scenario then. i collapse, no one knows what is wrong, my life is in danger, an ambulance is called. then, think of the next person, the little old lady that maybe has to wait an extra 10 minutes for an emergency ambulance because of my incident that could have been prevented by me being open about my condition. that lady could die while she waits for the ambulance, the heart attack could kill her, she might have lived for another 10 years if i had told my friend about my diabetes. think about it that way. diabetes DOES pose us with a safety issue from time to time but the impact that has on other people is minimised by being sensible.

sorry to rant.

[jazzbo]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to a docket of disability discrimination cases. It's from May 2003 (I'm looking for more recent dockets).




If you scroll down through the list it shows an astonishing number of cases involving diabetes. In one case, a preemployment blood test showed elevated blood sugars and the employer withdrew its offer of employment.

Yikes!

Best wishes for EVERYONE's good health.

Jazzbo

[jazzbo]

For some reason the link didn't show up. PM me if you are interested.

[DanG]

Moreover, I argue that a ruling in favor of vulnerable26's employer's policy would set a dangerous precedent, creating a chilling effect against exercising the very protections that the ADA is intended to provide.

I take it from some of your talk - you must be in law practice?

As to a chill effect - it has happened, hasn't it - chilling effects. Look at 2nd ammendment just a week ago. For all the activity of recent years seemingly "against" ownership of firearms, we get a seeming "chill" read come from the high court. It happens.

As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it. We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here - just as we can choose chocolate of vanilla - choice is good. Nobody demands that we eat chocolate, nobody should be demanding that we employ disabled persons, if we don't want. By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.

Lizzie G - thanks for the explanation - the old lady needing the ambulance - I will think on that a bit, really. I guess I am assuming most type 1 diabetes is a bit similar to my experience. I can usually guess what may happen. For me, it is not what used to be termed "brittle" in which case it is not very predictable. If something happens, I can usually trace it to an oversight or neglect on my part. In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady :) - so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady... I sympathize with you, vulnerable26. Do what you need to do, and thanks for letting us discuss your situation in depth - it has been interesting and informative.

[Subby]

In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady :) - so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady... I sympathize with you, vulnerable26. Do what you need to do, and thanks for letting us discuss your situation in depth - it has been interesting and informative.

"New" doesn't have to be relevant at all to hard-to-control diabetes. 15 years of a lot of daily effort and I'm only just starting to approximate "normal" control without hourly and daily swings, thanks to the radically improved basal shaping afforded by the pump. Situations where effort or the right thing for BG isn't being done aside, every diabetic will have a different experience of the "ease" that therapy works for them. This has to be very clear in any discussion of whether diabetics can just ignore it or minimize it in your life, or not.

For me, brushing it over the carpet, being embarrassed about it, or afraid of alerting my employer of my needs, (that's not fair on them, either: what if I was to go coma on them in the workplace?) would not be a safe, or particularly sensible, option. Doesn't mean I go around proclaiming at all but if I need consideration or help, I ask for it. That's what the law supports, as well. If I am in one spot for a length of time (like work) it's also very prudent that people around have some awareness that I'm diabetic and some brief detail what that entails on a practical level.

I echo the sentiment, the 19th century is gone. Doesn't mean employers now always do the right thing - at all. But the general expectation in society and reflected by the law is that it's reasonable to have sensible, within-reason considerations given for chronic conditions.

[Eddy]

I take it from some of your talk - you must be in law practice?


I.T. geek, actually. However, being both a consumer and partner in a small business, I also need to read up on statutes and precedents every now and again. (As previously disclaimed: IANAL.)

The funny thing is, when I was younger, many people suggested that I should be a doctor or a lawyer. I had no interest in either. Now I spend time pretending to be both of those. ;)


As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it.


It certainly does happen. That's part of why the ADA was passed. That's why it specifically discusses the exact behavior you describe.


We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here -


It depends whether the disability has an effect on job performance. Again, the ADA specifically addresses that.

Should we also be allowed choice of gender, racial, and religious preferences? If you say "no", how is non-job affecting disability any different than those criteria? If you say "yes"... good luck defending that position. :)


just as we can choose chocolate of vanilla - choice is good. Nobody demands that we eat chocolate, nobody should be demanding that we employ disabled persons, if we don't want.


Invalid analogy. One scenario does not involve others' rights. The other does. Your rights end where my rights begin.

Similarly:

If you want to smoke, drink, or use illegal drugs, so be it. Just don't endanger my health, life, or property -- or that of any other third party.


By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.


There's a difference between waving a big "I'm diabetic" flag, and refusing to get trampled on because of that fact.

Analogy:

No matter what your religion, I'll not be pleased if you try to bang into my head how superior it is. If you try to "convert" me, I'll be unhappy. ("Wearing the t-shirt.")

No matter what your religion is, I'm more than happy to talk with you and discuss our respective beliefs, provided that we both respect each other. As long as yours is one that honors what I consider to be basic human rights, I'll vehemently support your right to practice -- regardless of conflicts against my own beliefs. And I expect vice-versa. ("Neither of us is trampling on the other.")


so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady...


Actually, both might be the case. :) I've heard several females on DF state that hormonal variations (not only restricted to menses) are a significant source of unpredictability.

--[ edit ]--

In other threads, Jenn (vulnerable26) has mentioned having PCOS. I certainly can't understand it like someone who has it, but I've heard several "interesting" stories from those who do. Those who have both diabetes and PCOS seem to have a tougher time predicting insulin needs.

[pegasus]

As to a chill effect - it has happened, hasn't it - chilling effects. Look at 2nd ammendment just a week ago. For all the activity of recent years seemingly "against" ownership of firearms, we get a seeming "chill" read come from the high court. It happens.

And Congress has just passed legislation spelling out the traditional, broad readings of the ADA that some recent, constricting rulings of the court have denied. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. And the only way we establish norms that help keep individual and community rights in place, and both balanced and supportive of societal progress, is by creating and refining rules by which we *all* can live.

As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it. We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here -

Whose "undue hardship" do you refer to? The employer's? Employers get tremendous benefits out of being part of a society. They get employees trained by public schools, they have roads, bridges, tunnels built by public tax dollars, they often have tax breaks/abatements to "encourage" them to stay in a specific locale (or move to one). In return for benefiting from--being part of, and integrated into--society, they also have responsibilities and obligations to society. And one of those is to treat that society's residents with dignity and respect, in particular with concern for their health and well-being. Allowing a break to test blood sugar and eat sugar (among other "reasonable accommodations" required by the ADA) is very little to require of employer--or anyone or -thing else--who is part of society.

If they don't want disabled people, or black people, or short or tall people in their homes, that's their decision (and their loss). But while they're acting in, and as part of, a societal community, there are requirements and norms. Heaven forbid they should follow basic morality.

By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.

Sadly, if we all began wearing t-shirts, it might do us all a lot of good (it took me a long time to become public about being diabetic, and it's still not easy; it was felt--though not said--to be shameful when I was growing up). That's one difference between discrimination against many disabled people and racism: the disability is not visible. Kind of like homosexuality. Yet the discrimination is there, and has very real and, in some ways (health care), visible consequences.

I guess I am assuming most type 1 diabetes is a bit similar to my experience.

You do seem to make many assumptions (the "acknowledging" that diabetes is a gamble, Eddy being a lawyer, people being able to find new jobs easily ...)

If something happens, I can usually trace it to an oversight or neglect on my part. In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady :) - so there may be some unpredictability going on

So? We all make mistakes, whether we've had diabetes 2 hours, 2 months, or 20 years. There's no fault, blame, or justifying that needs to be done. The mistake doesn't justify or excuse an employer's preventing a worker from having to take medication they need.

Lizzie G:
Sadly, it took a long time for a supposedly "civilized" country such as the U.S. to catch up to these basic human rights. It took until 1990 for the ADA to be passed, not as labor law, which the US has been restricting since the basic laws were passed in 1934, but as a part of civil rights law, and as I said above, it's still being refined to ensure the protections disabled people need. (And I'm not a lawyer either, Dan, but an advocate.)

In 1984 I was working with an advocacy group that supported improving mass transit here in NYC. My assignment at an event was to walk with the people in wheelchairs in case they needed anything. It was the first time in my life I realized how difficult basic things are for disabled people--simple mobility, regardless of their access to wheelchairs, or crutches, or other basic supportive--personal--equipment. And some of these were folks with advanced degrees, doctorates, or years of experience in other fields; the hurdles--literal--they have to deal with are incredible. It's a true loss to society as a whole, as well as to them, that we don't acknowledge--and more readily accommodate--their presence, and instead make it so profoundly difficult, so that the wealthy can pay less in taxes.

To go back to another point, that Alice raised: The "industry" of "call centers" has grown exponentially in recent years, as mail order and tech support and all of that has grown off the charts, and these kinds of rules that vulnerable26 is describing--and worse--are commonplace. There are many reports of people wearing diapers in order to survive it. And these call centers are often set up in communities where good-paying jobs have gone overseas and they have few if any other options for work.

Otherwise, I support everything Eddy has written (thanks!).

Vulnerable26:
However, with all the links and the info provided, I will be printing that out and sharing it with my managers. I am also going to be starting the pump within a month so I am sure that will level things out a lot.

Also be sure you document the times you've been told it was against policy, and if you can, it would be good if you went with your coworker. The pump also takes a while to adjust to, and you have to test *a lot,* especially at the beginning. Given the company's policy, you should probably submit a letter from your doc stating this and give it to your managers along with the other material you bring.

And my apologies for the gender confusion--with pseudonyms I usually use "he" as a generic ... :embarasse

Good luck, vulnerable26.

[DanG]

You do seem to make many assumptions (the "acknowledging" that diabetes is a gamble, Eddy being a lawyer, people being able to find new jobs easily ...)

Oh - you misunderstand, I think...
It is that exact reason - easy to find a job - that I would never ponder the actions being spoken of here. I value the continuity of a paycheck and I realize that especially in today's economy, anyone and everyone is quite dispensible - therefore, vulnerable26 needs to be quite careful against loss of a job - even given ADA - if job is valued by vulnerable26. The reasons for layoff can be wide, no mention of disability such as diabetes - just... its a poor economy, or whatever. Don't be waving ADA regulations in front of anyone - afterall, unless your company is in interstate commerce, federal regulation does not prevail, as I understand it, but I am known to assume as pegasus has shown :o . I work for small local firm - ADA does not rule, I suspect - not assume.

As to basic morality - I doubt there is such a thing these days. We do have federal law - that is as good as it gets - again, I presume, not assume :o Morality is illegal. Rather, any basis of morality that some may have is not allowed to be used for any value, i.e. we cannot use the religious books as basis anymore, I doubt - or should I say assume.

Regarding discrimination - yes. We may feel we have progressed some, but I am of the opinion - no assuming, mind you - that our days of kindness and civility are fast disappearing. I think the unquenchable quest for the bottom line and our own personal affluence is fast making us quite cretan. No assumption there, please - opinion ONLY!

[shiftzor]

Don't stand for this sh*t, it is not acceptable in any case in any place no matter who you are or who you work for. You need sugar to keep living and you don't need me to tell you that. I don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise, we are all diabetics here and we all deserve as much as the next man. Your company I assume doesn't have a rule against insulin so why would you remove its opposite potentially life saving substance from a person who is insulin dependent diabetic? Running high is simply not an option. Diabetic complications are Not a Joke.

I would advice giving them a warning, maybe even from a lawyer and then to proceed with court action. One option could be to inform the new papers but that probably wouldn’t help you. Next time you are low, I would calmly walk up to your supervisor and explain your predicament. Explain that you cannot have the candy that would ordinarily save your life and that you would like her to call an ambulance. Inform her that she will be receiving any costs incurred from medical bills as a result of her negligence. Although I am not sure how legal that would be. Followed by legal proceeding would an option I would imagine. What I say maybe extreme but I wouldn’t personally just don’t roll over and play dead.

GlucoGel would definitely be worth considering in a situation like this.

[Eddy]

The reasons for layoff can be wide, no mention of disability such as diabetes - just... its a poor economy, or whatever. Don't be waving ADA regulations in front of anyone


You suggest that there may be retaliatory, covert action against Jenn. Unfortunately, I believe that the gauntlet has already been thrown.


unless your company is in interstate commerce, federal regulation does not prevail, as I understand it,


Oi. Anyone who is really interested can look into state-vs-federal jurisdiction, what constitutes interstate commerce, et cetera.


As to basic morality - I doubt there is such a thing these days. We do have federal law - that is as good as it gets - again, I presume, not assume :o Morality is illegal. Rather, any basis of morality that some may have is not allowed to be used for any value, i.e. we cannot use the religious books as basis anymore, I doubt - or should I say assume.

Regarding discrimination - yes. We may feel we have progressed some, but I am of the opinion - no assuming, mind you - that our days of kindness and civility are fast disappearing. I think the unquenchable quest for the bottom line and our own personal affluence is fast making us quite cretan. No assumption there, please - opinion ONLY!


To me, this seems to underscore the need for formal codification of social contract and common law... which is exactly what Pegasus was referencing. :)

[vulnerable26]

I am also adding that I am employed by the state of New Jersey. I am sure my supervisor is aware of the rules and guidelines of the ADA, as we have a lot of disabled (blind and deaf) working at my job.

I mentioned in a PM to someone she seems to think that a low blood sugar is a result of eating cake. Anytime that I have been called into the office for having soda and or candy because of a low, she says well if you stop eating cake or rice then you won't have this problem. I have tired to explain to her the difference but she just does not understand. Maybe she just needs to be educated. I really doubt as a state worker she would put the company into a position to be sued? Maybe she does not realize the consequences of the situation. Either way I am taking all of this and giving it to her so she can look over it.

[Eddy]

I would advice giving them a warning, maybe even from a lawyer and then to proceed with court action.


Also note that "court action" can mean many things. For example, Jenn might look into a TRO (temporary restraining order) as a first step.


One option could be to inform the new papers but that probably wouldn’t help you.


Yeah, I'd hold off. One can always say more, but can't take back what has been said. I don't see the press being of much help. That's just an opinion, though; I may well be wrong.


Next time you are low, I would calmly walk up to your supervisor and explain your predicament. Explain that you cannot have the candy that would ordinarily save your life and that you would like her to call an
ambulance.


Interesting idea.


Inform her that she will be receiving any costs incurred from medical bills as a result of her negligence.


I see what you're getting at... but I think that could be messier than seeking injunctive relief. My not-a-lawyer advice would be to use the ambulance scenario as ammunition when requesting a TRO/injunction.

Jenn, there's certainly been a lot of chatter here in the peanut gallery. Unfortunately, your only real options at this point are to run high, take your chances, or to talk with counsel.

[Eddy]

I am also adding that I am employed by the state of New Jersey. I am sure my supervisor is aware of the rules and guidelines of the ADA, as we have a lot of disabled (blind and deaf) working at my job.


Sec. 12202. State immunity

A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.


I mentioned in a PM to someone she seems to think that a low blood sugar is a result of eating cake. Anytime that I have been called into the office for having soda and or candy because of a low, she says well if you stop eating cake or rice then you won't have this problem. I have tired to explain to her the difference but she just does not understand. Maybe she just needs to be educated.


Make a good-faith effort to educate her on the difference between IDDM and reactive hypoglycemia. Document your attempts. Consider having your doctor's office mail -- perhaps even certified -- a letter explaining the two.


I really doubt as a state worker she would put the company into a position to be sued? Maybe she does not realize the consequences of the situation.


Ignorance is not an excuse. That said, it's in everyone's best interest for you to explain your needs, and why they do not present a hardship.

I have mixed feelings on "going up the chain", too. Although higher-ups might need to be alerted to this, anything construed as trying to circumvent her authority could be problematic.

Also consider if one of her superiors ruled in your favor... then she ignored their ruling... then said superior backed down. You're left in a pickle. This sort of stuff happens.


Either way I am taking all of this and giving it to her so she can look over it.


Excellent. With any luck, you'll be able to reach a peaceful resolution. If she's not interested in that... she can perform her own research and see what awaits.

Keep us informed. We're all hoping for the best.

(Side note: Gah! All this mess over a flippin' piece of candy or sip of soda.)

[DeusXM]

Lawsuits are probably going a bit far but as a last resort it's an option. You are going to have to educate the woman about the necessity of access to glucose though. Talk to her first - schedule a formal meeting and document what you discuss in it. If the situation is not resolved by the end of the meeting, inform her that you will therefore need to arrange a follow-up meeting with both your her, and a member of management. Don't do things behind her back because you'll just rub her up the wrong way. She probably isn't doing this because she's malicious. She's probably doing it because there is a regulation somewhere, and she's just looking to keep her job. If you can convince management that you need access to glucose and then she is doing the right thing by letting you eat when necessary on the job, she'll be more secure because she won't think she's going to get fired and you'll have the necessary amendments made to your work to make you more comfortable.

If you're still not getting any good feedback after these two meetings, then you need to inform the management that they are violating the ADA and if appropriate accommodations aren't made for you, you'll be left with no choice but to file a lawsuit in the grounds of discrimination. If they've got any sense then they'll back down.

I agree that you don't need to make a big deal out of treating your hypos - I'll usually just grab a regular soft drink from the fridge in my office if I'm running low. However you should be able to treat any lows without feeling like you are breaking regulations.

A more spiteful version of me would purposefully induce a hypo, ask the super if I could eat something to treat it, and then if they refuse let them deal with me passing out. I don't recommend you do this. :)

[Eddy]

Lawsuits are probably going a bit far but as a last resort it's an option. You are going to have to educate the woman about the necessity of access to glucose though. Talk to her first - schedule a formal meeting and document what you discuss in it. If the situation is not resolved by the end of the meeting, inform her that you will therefore need to arrange a follow-up meeting with both your her, and a member of management.


I still think it would be good to speak with an attorney before such a meeting. The comment about "find someplace else to work" sounds like a threat... and it may be wise to enter a meeting being able to say that she's already spoken with counsel.

Or perhaps not, if she's comfortable with her current preparation level.

More links:

(Jenn, pay particular attention to anything that says "third circuit". While the other stuff should apply, the third circuit is the circuit containing NJ.)

PDF file from ilru.org (http://www.ilru.org/html/training/webcasts/handouts/2007/07-11-PP/19.pdf) is rather recent.

From Ignorance is Bliss (http://www.cnapro.com/docs/overview_of_epli_claims_2000.doc) :


A New Jersey appellate court recently held that an employee was entitled to a jury trial on his claim of hostile environment based on disability, where he claimed that his supervisor made just two derogatory comments about his diabetes. Leonard v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 318 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1999).



Numerous federal courts have assumed that a claim for hostile environment based on disability can be maintained under the ADA. Walton v. Mental Health ***’n, 168 F.3d 661 (3rd Cir. 1999).


A search that might help: Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usca/search/index.html?scope=USCA3&query=diabetes+or+diabetic)

And then a few more links:

ADA enforcement (http://www.sedbtac.org/ada/publications/legal/guide_terms_issues_ADA_enforcement.txt)
The Americans with Disabilities Act: Statutory Language and Recent Issues (http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/crs_ada.shtml)
Making an Employment Case under the ADA (http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/1999/jul-aug/kierman.html)


If you're still not getting any good feedback after these two meetings, then you need to inform the management that they are violating the ADA and if appropriate accommodations aren't made for you, you'll be left with no choice but to file a lawsuit in the grounds of discrimination. If they've got any sense then they'll back down.


I also forgot to mention: Should things go down this road, she also should file a discrimination complaint with her state AG's office.

It may be wise to ponder Art of War by SunTzu (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html).


I agree that you don't need to make a big deal out of treating your hypos - I'll usually just grab a regular soft drink from the fridge in my office if I'm running low. However you should be able to treat any lows without feeling like you are breaking regulations.

A more spiteful version of me would purposefully induce a hypo, ask the super if I could eat something to treat it, and then if they refuse let them deal with me passing out. I don't recommend you do this. :)


*nod*

After hearing about the DF member who was left unconscious for several hours, I'd be afraid to try that. Besides, I think that would hurt her case for severity ("if it's really that dangerous, why did you let that happen instead of just breaking the rules?"), not to mention making a good-faith effort to reach a resolution.

[pegasus]

I am also adding that I am employed by the state of New Jersey.

Jenn, this confuses me. If you are directly employed by the state of New Jersey, you are likely unionized, and one of the first people you should be talking to there is your union rep. You should be entitled to have your rep at any meeting you have with your supervisor. You should give the ADA material explaining its application to diabetes to your rep, because s/he may not be aware that it's applicable.

If the firm is contracting with the state, then neither you nor your supervisor is *directly* a state employee; if she is, it's a very unusual situation; usually the state contracts with the company at the corporate level, and it's the staff of the separate company--not the state employees themselves--who handle supervision. (And the fact that you pay your own health insurance reinforces this version of your situation; if you were directly a state employee, the state would be paying it.)

Either way, if your supervisor supposedly knows the ADA, then clearly she must either be uneducated or willfully ignorant. If you bring her the copy of the actual statute (it might be worth it to get it directly from the EEOC, on letterhead! :) ), and she persists in denying you, then she has no excuse.

I have tired to explain to her the difference but she just does not understand. Maybe she just needs to be educated.

She's especially showing her ignorance by this nonsense about eating cake causing low blood sugar; as a supervisor she has a responsibility to educate herself before spreading it, so that gives some inkling as to her understanding, compassion, and willingness to learn. She's someone to be careful of, because she's clearly not listening, given the number of times it sounds like you've attempted to explain--you've tried to "educate" her and she doesn't seem to want to learn.

If it is a separate company (or even, for that matter, the state) that supposedly knows the ADA, especially given that there's a significant number of deaf and blind people there, then keeping the idea of the news media in your back pocket is a good one. It would be *terribly embarrassing,* and not at all good for business, if it were known that a company supposedly providing such services was itself discriminating.

And Dan, Eddy's right: federal civil rights law covers all firms, big, small, and in between, whether or not there's interstate commerce.

Eddy:
One can always say more, but can't take back what has been said. I don't see the press being of much help.

This is an especially critical aspect of how to respond, Jenn. Start cordially and work up; you can't work backward. Just make sure every conversation, every instance, is documented.

****:
I value the continuity of a paycheck and I realize that especially in today's economy, anyone and everyone is quite dispensible - therefore, vulnerable26 needs to be quite careful against loss of a job - even given ADA - if job is valued by vulnerable26. The reasons for layoff can be wide, no mention of disability such as diabetes - just... its a poor economy, or whatever.

Here's one place we agree, Dan, though it's the response we *don't* agree on. In easy times, when it's easy, let's say, to get a new job, then the laws are pointless: If it's easier to ignore the violations, the breaking of the social contract (thanks again, Eddy!), then why bother passing laws at all? It's when the violation is most egregious, when the, in this case, employee is most vulunerable, that it's most critical to *invoke* the law and insist on its being followed. Kind of like habeas corpus during wartime.

It is profoundly difficult for vulnerable (appropriate name here, Jenn :) ) people to do these things, which is another reason why it's good to do it in numbers (with your coworker, Jenn, if possible), why unions were formed, why the Montgomery bus boycott worked--because *all* workers withheld their labor. This isn't hyperbole. We're in very tough times, and it makes it very difficult to not give in to the powerful.

Let us know what happens, Jenn; we're all pulling for you.