Seeping Psoriasis as Disability??

ekmurch · June 2005

ALERT--this problem is not pretty...

We have an employee who has psoriasis so bad that he scratches himself all the time and leaves blood, seepage and skin flakes wherever he happens to be. Our main problem is that he uses a company vehicle and leaves remains. Other employees are upset and refuse to use the vehicle. He wants to be accommodated under the ADA by having his own airconditioned vehicle. We don't think it rises to the level of a disability, but we aren't sure of the best way to protect him and the rest of our staff from disease and infection. Any help would be appreciated.

seeleyhr · June 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-28-05 AT 02:48PM (CST)[/font][br][br]First thing I would do is get a doctor's slip from the employee and verify that he is indeed getting treated. Then, if qualifies for ADA, I would decide whether or not this is reasonable accommodation.

Whatever · June 2005

Obviously, you need medical information. However, even if this is not ADA (and I tend to doubt it is ADA), his co-workers are still being exposed to blood. Therefore, the question..why not insist that the psoratic (is this a word) area be covered either by clothing or some sort of bandage.

ekmurch · June 2005

We have the medical information stating that it is psoriasis...it does not meet (in my humble opinion ADA). Do you see any problems with insisting that the area be covered by bandages or clothing? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything that I should be considering before we make the move to insist that he cover the exposed areas. Thanks!

WT · June 2005

Believe it or not, we have had a similar employee. Problems did not come from the illness but rather the scratching and attendant problems including complete lack of consideration for the other employees. Bandages and covering can make this problem worse. However, you could allow time at the end of the shift to have the employee clean his vehicle including vacuuming any flakes and scrubbing the inside with a bleach/water solution that would kill blood borne pathogens. This would be a solution if you could not afford a vehicle just for the one employee. Make sure the cleaning is thorough and done on a daily basis. If so, employees would have nothing to complain about.

System · June 2005

In my opinion this would not be covered under ADA, and neither is 'inconsideration.' I would think the employee should go the extra mile to be considerate and accommodating long before I would consider providing him with his own vehicle. I agree that the only accommodation you should make is allowing him the extra time to clean a vehicle. You're still apt to have the problem of no one else wanting to use the same car. The visual of the condition is detestable to them and you're going to have more problems than vehicles to deal with. You have a legitimate business reason for asking him to cover the area unless a doctor advises against it. Good luck with this. Certainly let us know.

Welcome to the forum!

Crout · June 2005

It's sort of like saying I want my own vehicle so I can leave a mess at my own liesure and not worry about anyone complaining. His skin condition is not a license to be a slob.

LivindonSouth · June 2005

Terminate this employee. His request is unreasonable, this is not an ADA covered disability and you have no obligation to accommodate. It is totally unreasonable for the employer to continue posing this level of safety risk to other employees.

This is no different than a manufacturing employee who has continuous nosebleeds and leaves those remains on equipment exposing others.

pork1 · June 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-30-05 AT 08:06AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I concurr with Don on the termination, but I would do it with the assistance of a qualified physician who would have a copy of the job description and a clear understanding of the ee's working environment on which to make the decision that the person is medically disqualified to work in your industry!

If the physician can not come to the level of medical disqualification, then I would turn to the safe working enviroment under OSHA guidance to protect the other employees from physical and/or mental harm.

PORK

PS: My wife has this medical condition; she has been disqualified from donating blood, so there must be something in one's blood that makes it dangerous enough to stop allowing blood donations by the effected person.

System · June 2005

Pork, I see your point in your first paragraph, but I don't see that job industry has anything to do with it. In your PS you say that the condition makes it dangerous for the recipient and consequently the would-be donor is disqualified from donating blood. When a person is disqualified from donating, sometimes it means that it's unsafe for the donor, not necessarily for the recipient.

pork1 · June 2005

s moll: Pretty simple to me, our industry has particular physical requirements in which a person could be medically disqualified where your industry may be able to handle that persons disqualification. If you can not bend, jump, climb, crawl, and other physical conditions you would not necessarily be qualified to work in our jobs. There are others but thewse are good examples, You may weigh 400 lbs in your industry but in some of our postions that would medically disqualify you from the opportunity to work.

That is true about blood donations, but in this case it was the psoriasis that caused her to be rejected. It is a list in their computer that seperates out the individual trying to donate. The same compuiter rejected my donation for the first time ever. There is now a batch of questions associated with "MAD COW" disease and England/EUROPE visitations. My history of being located in Europe over the last 25 years caused the interview to stop and reject. There are millions of service men and women and families, that now will be rejected because of the concerns for "MAD COW" disease.

PORK

Ranger · June 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-30-05 AT 01:33PM (CST)[/font][br][br]We also have an employee in manufacturing with this condition. After complaints, we told him he was required to cover up any oozing patches of skin while at work. A short while later, after finding blood on the floor in a bathroom stall (we knew he was the last one in there) and seeing his bloody arm, he was told in writing if he leaves blood like this again, he would be terminated for violating our bloodborne pathogen policy.

That was several months ago -- no further problems.

We do not consider him ADA protected. No major life activity limitation.

Seeping Psoriasis as Disability??

Comments