Refusing Dr's Orders

KP68

What would you do if an employee told you that she was put on bedrest per her doctor, however she does not want to be, and has continued to come to work (but only at 5 hours per day).
She asked her dr. if she could work part-time, however he told that she was should not be working. This is all verbal, by the way - nothing is in writing from her doctor.

The employee submitted a letter stating that she does not wish to go on bedrest and is continuing to work by her own choice.

What would/could you do in this situation? She is pregnant and is due in about a week.

Don D

I would tell her that she is not to work at all under any circumstances until and unless she presents to you a doctor's statement releasing her for full duty. Period.

Down_the_Middle

If this employee's work performance is only minimally affected by her pregnancy, I'd go with the employee's desire to continue working. The MD is likely addressing the mother or baby's health risk vs. Mother's capacity to continue working. If her performance has decreased, you might have success with your Employee Health/occup health folks restricting her from continued employment, or convincing her that she follow her physician's advice........ Presumably you're treating her the same as another employee who's personal physician says stay home til you heal and the employee says I'm healed and ready to go. There are obviously other factors driving the employee's decision...............

KP68

The main factor driving this is a paycheck.

Whatever

First of all,you should not make an accomodation without something in writing from the doctor. Allowing the ee to work a 5hour day is an accomodation and is setting a precedence (particularly) without a doctor's note. Second, it should be treated like any other illness in which the states the ee cannot work. They cannot work without a medical release.

KP68

So I tell her that we need authorization from a doctor for her to work five hours per day, and in the meantime....send her home even though we do not have anyting in writing stating he did not want her working at all in the first place? Is a verbal notification of restrictions by the EE enough to act on?

I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of it, but typically we don't even start a process like this until we have it in writing what the restrictions are.

Rockie

I agree that I would not allow her to work at all unless a physician authorized it. She has, to a certain extent, made her own accomodation by working 5 hours a day for which she has no certification from a physician.

Just advise her unless she has a certification from her physician that she can work five hours a day, she is not to return to work.

Don D

Her admission to you that she is violating her doctor's orders has put you on notice. That is sufficient to tell her to go to the house and that she cannot return until she has a full release, not a five hour per day release, a full release. If she is injured or the fetus is injured and she claims that, "Hey, I told HR I was ordered off work and they had me working anyway, knowing full well what my condition was and when I was due," how do you think that will play to a jury. Protect the company. Send her to the house.

deniseE

Just to play devil's advocate....x}>

Let's assume that the accomodation is made by the employer simply because it's clear that a full day is too much for a woman that is just about ready to deliver...and that it's a working practice in this environment...in the past a doctor has not needed to certify this...so we can set the part time hours aside...


is it possible that this ee is incorrectly relaying something her doctor said? Maybe the doctor commented that it would be Ok, or nice, or even preferable, to have mom take time off now to rest? and she took that to mean that she SHOULD be home?

I agree with the others that it would be practical for you to request a release from the doctor to allow her to return....BUT...this sets a precedent too...

KP68

We typically don't allow time off prior to the birth unless it is medically necessary and approved as a qualified disability (or is under FMLA). So we are not setting a precedent by requesting info from her doctor. In fact, we'd be setting a precedent if we did nothing.

Don D

Devil's advocate to the Devil's advocate: Let's assume you've always accommodated to-be mom's by letting them rearrange hours, as you suggest. Sort of a motherhood and apple pie sort of approach, since we all love mom's and babies. Then along comes a male with a temporary disability who suggests to you that he'd like similar accommodation and you tell him it's only available if his condition is work related and a comp claim is in process or has been filed. He challenges you when you tell him that and asks, "What about these women who you let work five hours a day when they're two weeks from delivery?" What color is the pickle in which you find yourself?

swatts

If she isn't going to follow what she reports are the dr's orders, why did she even mention it to you? To explain why she is only working 5 hours? But she is willing to partially following dr's orders by only working 5 hours? Hard to figure out just what she is doing.

deniseE

Excellent point Don.... although we're not supposed to, I guess I feel inclined to give these ladies a bit of flexibility....unpaid, if PTO is not available...

But you're right...it should be treated as any other non-work related disability.

Don D

x:-) It's not that 'we are not supposed to'. It's illegal to do so. I guess I've just listened to the drumbeat of women's rights, equal pay for equal work, sexual equality and the glass ceiling for so many years, I cannot understand an HR Manager being inclined to 'give ladies flexibility' when it not necessarily will be given to men as well. Childbirth cannot be the only painful and trying physical condition. You are really ripe for a lawsuit if this practice continues, as I'm sure any attorney would tell you.