2145
Work from home
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
2145 points (99.5% liked)
Malicious Compliance
18048 readers
14 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wife was hired in 2014 for a position that was designed to be remote. They changed things in 2017 and tried to make her come into an office 2.5 hours away, 5 days a week. She's legally blind and doesn't drive, a fact they were fully aware of and had no issues with when they hired her. She tried to argue multiple times, and it just ended up going in circles with several managers getting pretty insulting to her. So, she quit, and eventually decided to contact a disability lawyer to inform the ex-employer she would be suing for discrimination, and ADA violations. Because they said some pretty stupid things in emails and voicemails. They ended up offering a nice sized settlement. She found another WFH job that paid 3x what she was making at the old place, with a higher level position and more closely fits her education. She's much happier with how things turned out for her. The position has been on various job sites for over 3 years and doesn't look like it's been filled since she quit, though I can't say that for sure.
My sister in law is blind in one eye, but because she has one working eye she has no disability protection as far as I know. She still can't drive because she has no depth perception and it's very dangerous. It's made navigating going to work difficult over the years, often working the same place my brother did so he could drive her. Luckily her current employer works with her and lets her work from home. But a decade ago no one would have dreamed of letting her work from home.
According to the EEOC, it’s a disability:
And it sounds like her employer is doing the right thing. But if ever she feels she is not being treated fairly, she should talk to a lawyer to be sure. Don’t just let it slide because she has one good eye. Hell it might be good to talk to a lawyer anyway, so she knows what to look out for in the future if things happen to change.
Thank you, I think she believes she is not protected. I'll look into this.
It might not qualify her for disability insurance, as in she no longer needs to work any jobs, but should absolutely entitle her to disability protections, as in job requirements should be modified to permit her to continue to work. If her employer is not making accommodations to permit her to continue to work then she might have a legal case.
How do you know the EEOC applies where she is?
You’re right. I made an assumption about where she lives. I shouldn’t have, but I did. The advice about talking to a lawyer to know her rights, though, is universal regardless of where she lives. So I still stand by my statements.
Because the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is enforced by the EEOC.
I think what they're getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.
That's generally a fair criticism, but the context from the rest of this particular thread is clearly US based