[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]

Originally Posted by ****

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.

Originally Posted by ****

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.

Originally Posted by ****

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 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]

Originally Posted by shiftzor

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.

Originally Posted by shiftzor

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.

Originally Posted by shiftzor

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.

Originally Posted by shiftzor

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by vulnerable26

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.

Originally Posted by vulnerable26

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.

Originally Posted by vulnerable26

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 is rather recent.

From Ignorance is Bliss :

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

And then a few more links:

ADA enforcement
The Americans with Disabilities Act: Statutory Language and Recent Issues
Making an Employment Case under the ADA

Originally Posted by DeusXM

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.

Originally Posted by DeusXM

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]

Originally Posted by vulnerable26

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.

Originally Posted by vulnerable26

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.