If there’s any possibility that you could advocate within the company for Liz getting some assistance from the company (even partial assistance), rather than them waiting for her to ask, I would urge you to do so. Talk to the HR experts you already called in about what your next steps need to be. Not necessarily. how should I handle joking around during mental health discussions with my team? Can they do that? I personally think there is a time and place for a simple apology with no expectations of further contact. Like KellyK said, “We can surmise that it needs improvement because a problem happened, but you’re totally right that we can’t declare it a failure.”. Calling comments based on Jack’s own statement “speculation” suggests we shouldn’t take his word for the effect of his condition. I read the “Liz refuse to come back unless Jack is fried” as going something like this: HR: “What would it take for you to come back?”, Liz: “Well, Jack would have to be gone. The words might be seen as harsh but, its what it is. It’s entirely possible that she just doesn’t have it in her right now to deal. There was a great deal of shadenfreude that swerved into fat-shaming and classism and ableism (in particular with respect to drug addiction) and ended up feeling like a giant pile-on. There was a police investigation because Liz was injured by a vehicle. WTF? It’s unclear justice would be served by convicting Jack of a crime. I recall my mother getting whiplash from an accident. I think what is meant here is a settlement that’s above and beyond what would cover medical expenses. It certainly sounds like she just wants to be clear and away from the company. And even if you get an emotional distress recovery, that’s taxable as income–it’s only physical injury awards that are tax free. yeah, I’m wondering if that sort of thing is what the letter writer / OP just left out, bcs she was restricting her focus to job-related stuff? So I’m also surprised that Liz isn’t suing — I definitely think she should, in this case. Ugh. The OP, posting under the name Andrew N, confirmed that both Jack and the company only called to see if she would come back and that there was no checking in or apologies. I find this difficult to comprehend. I still don’t think they got it right. It was survivable, life happens, blah blah. What reasonable legitimate reason would *Jack* have to call Liz repeatedly to ask if she’s coming back? I am seconding the “small industry, you guys are likely to look bad” vibe. Having to hear my own doctor say that he expects the best I can hope for is 80% recovery …, The settlement made me financially whole, but the best feeling the day I got that check was realizing “I am DONE with this!” and for the rest of my life I can focus on the things I can do and not get dragged down thinking about what I can’t manage. I read it when there were maybe 500 comments and didn’t see anything particularly rough or antagonistic. -One lingering question still is if HR is regulating Jack’s contact with Liz? Should OP report this to HR? Just because the LW didn’t say it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. An ultimatum is “you must fire Jack.” This was negotiation. I see no real sympathy for what she’s been through in the original post and in this update. Likely the same kind of person who would demand someone else be fired before she came back in a situation, while horribly unpleasant, that was an accident. Litigation is plenty expensive, and some plaintiff’s attorneys are no heroes, but I’m pretty sure that the majority work on contingency. It’s not our place to speculate on what treatment jack should or should not get, but it is absolutely appropriate for his management or HR to discuss safety plans with him and how he’s going to prevent another accident like this one. But both Jack and the company repeatedly called her after she made her feelings clear because they wanted her to change her mind. They could have. If I’m not mistaken, I think the OP in that letter was on a business trip and heard her coworker in the next room having, as OP referred to it, “loud drunken sex”. I’m addressing that. So I think they dropped it. People on both sides of that issue were reading it through their own POV and being unkind to those with different POVs. Even more unbelievably he’s over there just standing there, waiting to see what’s happening. There’s also something to be said for just not being litigious minded. Thing is, once we veer off of strict offering advice to the OP, you do get into personal filters and perception. The consequence of that being that Liz quit her job when she’d done absolutely nothing wrong and had a traumatic experience is just awful, but this was an awful situation from the get-go and I really feel for the OP and everyone involved. Exactly. (Although I do think Jack/the company should have backed off on asking her if she’d come back much faster; one “no” should have been enough.) I know I’d kick in. In this case, if she sues Jack and the company gets involved, she’ll have to deal with former coworkers and her former bosses being on “team Jack” and trying to work against her interests. As a sidenote I think the company’s reputation will suffer more for not paying her medical bills more than not wanting to fire Jack. Everything about this update makes me uncomfortable. If the health insurance is offered through the employer, would the insurance company still seek subrogation? Create. Honestly, they sued not for the payout, but to keep the person who caused my grandparents’ deaths from getting it (because he and his girlfriend were also injured in the accident). I actually stand by what I said originally; you can’t let employees dictate how you handle another employee. – I had to pay my neighbor’s teenager to help me clean, I ate A LOT of takeout because cooking was next to impossible and after a full day of work and then physical therapy 4 days a week, I was too exhausted from pain and running around to do anything anyway. My husband was party to something much less damaging: he ordered a margarita at a restaurant, and it had glass in it. This is the part that really, really bothered me in the first letter too. The OP gave us the facts with no analysis, which is perfectly acceptable (and preferable imho). The question you should be asking is, how badly do you want to spend the next 5 years of your life in court while the government agency gambles that you’ll run out of money before they do?” I opted to preserve my sanity and my financial resources, and walked away. And that contingency amount is set to take the largest chunk allowed (some jurisdictions cap it) from what the client will get, and they only take cases they are pretty sure they are going to win. I had to be examined by the defendant’s doctors and I haaaaated that – someone poking and prodding and asking questions to come to an opinion on your diagnosis and prognosis … that they don’t share with you – unnerving! I honestly don’t think we should expect letter writers to give a blow-by-blow of every step unless it’s really needed. I feel really bad for Liz, as well. The distinction between “responsibility” and “liability” is indeed important. I think those of us that have experienced a toxic workplace aren’t at all surprised by her actions. Well, I don’t know about “clear clear”, but the OP did show up and give a lot more information about what happened. They even refuse to get out of house on account of encounter with the duck. When it comes down to actually suing, it simply doesn’t happen nearly as much as the talk of it happens. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if changing therapists/treatment methods was part of that; ‘taking a break’ could well mean “I’m not seeing my old therapist because clearly that wasn’t working, and I’m still working on finding a new one.”, Wow! could someone explain the problem with the bully posts? Sure it was coercive to have a third of your retail in an office demanding something be done because we refused all shifts with him, but I would have walked if they let us continue being harassed. It does seem like the “calls to see if she would come back” were more of concern and wanting to know if she OK” than “when can you return because your work is pilling up”. If you have to be sent a cease and desist to get you to stop pressuring someone to come back, you probably should reconsider your processes.. I wonder, would it be useful for Alison to ban schadenfreude? I’m never going to turn down money like that, especially when something bad happened to me. Consider how this might effect your company’s reputation in the long run. This is not gonna just go away. If Liz’s insurance finds out this happened on company time they may try and get restitution from the company’s workers comp policy themselves. Like, if this was talk therapy, and he is thinking about CBT, that sort of thing. I’m also shocked she didn’t file a workers’ comp claim. I know that, had I heard this story, I would probably choose not to apply for the company if I had any choice about it – like, if I was about to be evicted because I had no money and I was utterly desperate for work, maybe, but otherwise no way. Why is it more admirable to not exercise a right? Hopefully his break is more to find a different therapist/treatment than an actual break. If it were me, I’d probably try to find a different form of therapy, because clearly what he had at the time wasn’t doing the trick. We know that Jack disclosed his phobia to her, but not necessarily when in this process. Thanks for clarifying. I was scared she quit and would struggle to find work. Even if that was all, keep in mind there may have been ‘cover your legal liability’ limits to the communications. My knee jerk reaction when I read the letter was, “Oh my God, oh my God, I would be so traumatized if that happened to me, I could never go back to that employer again, sue Jack for all he’s worth … ” You get the idea. That is, I think the moderated discussion on this second post is different than the comments you often see about “Politician X did awful thing Y, therefore they must have mental health issue Z and need treatment Q.”. Yeah, well, 20 years down the line, I still have a plate in my ankle that aches if I bang it up against something sharp (more so than if I did it on the other side where there’s just bone), and a far better understanding that torn ligaments never actually fully heal. It’s a small industry, word gets around. We know that the bird phobia is an issue he’s been in treatment for and that he’s currently taking a break from therapy to evaluate his options. At best, it’s a neutral waste of time and (probably) money. KellyK makes some good points to this end. She may still change her mind. In this case, Liz was physically assaulted and seriously injured and Jack (from her perspective and, honestly, mine) seems to have zero care about it. He’s not her supervisor. Without knowing more about the company, he might want to consider new opportunities sooner than later. I didn’t realize it wasn’t common. You know why.” The end. Worse, workers comp had to approve every treatment, and they dragged their feet and left him in extreme pain for 3 months before they would authorize the surgery he needed. I didn’t weigh in on the original letter, but if I had been one of the coworkers who witnessed this awful event, I think I would be a little uneasy about how it was handled because it seemed Liz took the full brunt of the consequences. At this point, reaching out to Liz is off the table. Has this all really just rolled on? If Liz decided that it wasn’t for her, then that’s her choice and is perfectly acceptable. We are probably not seeing the whole picture, but it is also bothersome that there isn’t mention of the company making sure Liz was OK in terms of anything outside what she could provide to this company. Yes, this was my interpretation as well. I don’t blame her at all for just choosing to move on instead of fighting a messy legal battle. The fact that HR was repeatedly contacting Liz about whether she was coming back until Liz *asked a lawyer to write a letter making them stop* is just such a huge red flag. This is insane. There was a liability cap, and at the end of the day, my mother and uncle got just a little more than what it took to cover their legal fees. I found there was alot of mentions of people passively [so even if they didn’t mean it that way] saying the OP deserves what they got coming to them, karma, revenge is a dish served cold, blah blah blah where the focus was less on giving the op advice on the issue she asked about and more about projecting their past experiences on the op and condemning them. Or fear… they know this is a possibility and b.) Actually, after the update from OP, I’m more upset than ever about this letter. I am glad that Jack is exploring new therapy options (I assume that is what Jack and the OP meant) It’s so hard, from the inside, to recognize when your therapist isn’t helping you, and it was unfortunate for everyone that something this dramatic had to happen for him to see that he needed different/better treatment. I also felt that there was a fairly pervasive lack of empathy toward the OP, especially once it became more clear what had happened in high school. The truth is that with phobias and PTSD and other similar issues, there is no one therapy that works for everyone. I really got irritated by the idea that Liz should not be compelled to forgive and forget, to be a nice girl and rug-sweep to make Jack and the company more comfortable. Well sure, even on these boards, an appeal to “is this legal? Like, fire that man yesterday level of sympathy. Thanks for the sympathies. The real issue in western societies is NOT the ability of people to sue willy-nilly but the fact that those without $$$ or with low dollar claims really can’t get justice. It seems that Liz was the only person who did nothing wrong this entire time. Both the police and the driver’s insurance company found Jack to be 100% at fault for what happened, based on multiple witness accounts that Jack had extended his arms back and then out when he pushed Liz and didn’t just lightly bump into her. If I was Liz, I would be so enraged that HR and Jack should be counting their blessings that I was maintaining radio silence. It was a bad accident, and it was traumatic. Also, there are at least 12 states where if your medical bills don’t exceed a certain amount you can’t sue for emotional distress. Choose.” To the company.) I’m still scratching my head a bit on some of HR’s actions but it seems like this was the most amicable way this could’ve ended up. These recordings are excellent at dealing with all forms of simple phobia, and have the added benefit of tackling any or all fears and anxieties that you may be have been experiencing. A lot of this is company-specific, too. The doctors said she would’ve never needed the surgery if she hadn’t been in an accident. Liz did “just quit gracefully,” though. Mentally ill people retain agency except in the most extreme cases (like paranoid schizophrenia). Like many specific phobias, the symptoms of ornithophobia vary according to its severity. The only thing you can do is make any necessary legal preparations, just in case she changes her mind about suing. But at least the reaction validates Liz’s determination to GTFO, which is not a small thing in the wake of a decision to leave your job during a medical crisis. It’s fine to want that, but they shouldn’t be able to compel someone to give it to them. www.x2u.club collected Retail Bird Memes pics from Pinterest, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, these memes curiosities are usually absurd humor photos and curios videos, but memes can also have deep political and cultural undertones, see more ideas about Retail Customers Memes, Early Bird Memes or Funny Flappy Bird Memes. She absolutely deserves that at a minimum. The employer is subject to fines and sanctions from the state for failing to do so. What Anna said. You can interpret it either way, but we can’t know for sure how it played out so I suggest agreeing to disagree on that point and moving on. This one really stays with you. You’ve said repeatedly that it’s obvious that this is worthy of admiration but it seems pretty clear that others (and I) don’t think it’s obvious. HR definitely blew it IMO; Jack should not have been involved in asking Liz to come back, and they should have let it drop when they didn’t get any response. It might be as simple as asking him to keep more space between himself and others while outdoors. That she never asked and/or demanded the company reimburse her this does not mean the company shouldn’t have proactively *offered* to cover her bills. That doesn’t make Jack bad or the villain. My company refused to fire or even discipline the co-worker.”) will be very weary of working of your company. I’d keep that in mind if I were the company. OP, as others have said, you still don’t know what will happen from the financial aspect. This is one of those situations where it’d be great if OP would chime in. What if the car hit me harder? OP, something to consider: If this is a small industry, your entire handling of the situation will most likely spread pretty fast. However, that’s just talk. By framing the story, they made the victim sound absurd, which allowed them to keep sales up. While some states may mandate that doctors report work comp claims (how is the doctor supposed to get the reporting information if the employer isn’t cooperative? 33% is the common attorney contingency, but Case is also correct about repaying medical bills out of the settlement and the attorney also getting paid contingency out of that. The vibe the company is giving is that they want to act like nothing happened- in neither letter has the manager said anything about prevention. So they probably had to contact Liz to a certain extent. Thank you for the update, OP. And I agree, the bird post had a similarly combative tone to it as well: either Jack is the villain and Liz is the hero/victim, or vice versa. They may have been prohibited by their lawyers because sympathy can be twisted into an admission of guilt. I’m glad that Liz was able to move on, and it seems to be as painlessly as possible – no litigation, etc. She was the victim of an accident where she was badly hurt and needed medical care. We are all more than just what we do for work. If anything, the communication they did choose to have and what those communications contained likely made the entire situation seem worse for Liz. A lot of it clearly comes from the privatised healthcare system, since in the US you can be absolutely ruined by a serious accident, but even so the idea of suing someone just… doesn’t come up that much in my experience. But since I am in a management position over him, I didn’t think it was appropriate for me to comment or tell him that. But if I remember correctly, the OP said that the event with Liz was the first they knew about Jake’s issues, so punitive damages appear to be off the table. can my job make me travel during the pandemic? My best friend is terrified of dogs, but I would never worry about her accidentally pushing me into the street to get away from one at the exact moment a car was coming. The other driver’s insurance kept pressuring her to sign papers. I suspect it will yet get back around to them when Liz’s health insurance company moves to subrogate the claim for her medical expenses that are actually a result of a work related injury. Which is even more stigmatizing than saying that Jack’s illness isn’t well controlled in this case. If the lawyer gets back to you and says “thanks but no thanks” then that’s fine, but I feel that since you have this avenue, it’s an attempt you should still try to make. As I said in my letter I did not feel it was appropriate for me to lecture him on his choice. The at fault party’s car insurance paid out for my injuries eventually. She found out that worker’s comp – even though it was through the same university system – wouldn’t cover any of her regular doctors or the facilities she typically used for her routine medical care. Therapy is meant as a coping tool for recovery not a life-time sentence. Phobias are classified into two types: simple phobias and complex phobias. I’m really glad we got an update on this one. I think its also important to remember that something we would consider to be a social courtesy or obligation can have legal implications and repercussions. It may well have been, or it may have been a ham-handed attempt by HR to get Liz and Jack on at least speaking terms. I wonder what other options he’s exploring. But then I remembered how the lengthy legal battle after my grandparents died in a car accident that wasn’t their fault. And it will get around. I would like to know more about whether he was actually contrite, or whether he just also engaged in CYA action. I also felt the first letter was very pro-Jack. It seems to me that this is a discussion that you or HR should have. “I’M NOT GIVING YOU CLOSURE.”. Not even then. Sometimes taking a financial hit is necessary for your mental health. However they weren’t going to be held hostage to any ultimatums and ultimately “sided” with Jack due to that. Hence, it’s stigmatizing. The lawyer was vocally sad that it had all happened among friends. Yes. Good for Liz for taking care of herself right now. At every moment in this situation, it seems like OP’s company treated Katie coldly and without compassion or empathy. Thanks for printing my update Alison (I am the OP – Alison can verify that my name is the same as on the emails I sent her) I appreciate the input from Alison and everyone. They can be lengthy and exhausting, that’s true. If you do that, you might end up agreeing with the employee who’s asking for someone else to be fired, or you might not — but the decision needs to be made by someone above who’s looking at all those factors, not by a single employee making the demand (or request or what have you). +1 Yeah, that was misphrased on my part. Continuing to ask her was… well, I’m trying to think of a less harsh way to put it, but it was wrong. And I hope he realizes that ASAP. I’m stuck on this one too. We have to accept it when another person’s discomfort outweighs our guilt, and the radio silence should have signaled that well enough to give up the fight. We can feel bad for both Liz and Jack, and feel bad for both OP and the person OP bullied. The decided very loud and heated split in the comments pretty much illustrates the prosecutor’s dilemma. A close friend was hit by a car while walking across a crosswalk. I am basing this on your advice in the previous letter of Liz not dictating Jack’s employment. Exactly right. If you don’t want to work with them quit, the extreme reaction is her ultimatum. I have also received “come back and help us” calls from an employer after I left (with full notice) and I found it imtrusive and weird and that was just moving on from a slightly unpleasant workplace. It was a mess that took the better part of two years to resolve. I hope HR at OP’s company has worked with (or is continuing to work with) Jack to resolve any concerns they might have about safety and the possibility of future reactions. And in those situations that you described, a sensible company would determine the person should be fired. If he truly has remorse and concern for Liz (or if the OP does), it has not been well communicated in these letters, and that’s kind of a factor. The entire response of the company was 100% tone deaf. I’m sure your lawyer appreciated that she sent that letter, but wow, what a terrible example of someone putting their own need to feel better about themselves over your well-being.