Diabetic can't wear steel-toed shoes

gsmiller · May 2005

We have a diabetic employee whose physician has sent a note stating that she can no longer wear steel-toed (metatarsal) shoes due to problems with her feet. She has been out of work once before on medical leave for this same condition. It is a safety requirement of our company that all employees must wear these shoes. Any advice on how to handle this?

POPEYE · May 2005

Get some "steel-toed clips" that fit on the outside of shoes. That is what we use if an EE forgets to bring/wear the correct shoes.

gsmiller · May 2005

We have some clip-ons for visitors, but they can't be used permanently by employees in place of metatarsals.

Don D · May 2005

You are correct. Only on a very temporary basis. If she cannot conform to the demands of the job, including the wearing of PPE, she is not qualified to hold it. Make absolutely no accommodation which violates a safety policy. Then you're only in a different tub of hot water. Cut her loose if she cannot wear steel toes.

marc · May 2005

If the steel toes are a safety requirement, and there are no other acceptable shoes that will meet the safety standard, accomodating her needs may not be possible.

If that is indeed the case, your choices are (1) find another position she is qualified to fill, or (2) terminate.

I would think this an ADA issue, but compromising safety to accomodate is not reasonable, in my opinion.

pork1 · May 2005

"not reasonable", it is "negligent" on the part of the decision maker to decide against a Safety Issue.

I am a diabetic and wear special shoes, you might want to check your local supply houses to see if they have developed a "steel toe diabetic shoe". If not you will have no choice but to cancel your employer/employee relationship.

I would also talk with the physician or the physician's nurse to make sure they are informed of your companies' safety issue and position. It night be that the patient made it sound like: "the company makes us all wear steel toe shoes, can you give me a medical profile that says, I can not wear steel toe shoes anymore". "Sure I can, I'll just write it here on this excuse!

Little did he know that this finding on a medical report could cause her to be medically disqualified from her job that she loved so well.

If her feet are at that stage of damage, then she certainly should be at home taking care of her feet. I walk around all of my waking hours with HOT burning SAND in my shoes, regardless of the special shoes the discomfort does not go away, but I could find a way to wear "steel toe shoes" if it was going to cost me my job. My neighbor developed a sore on his heel, which would not heal, he lost a leg, and finally his life in a year's time.

Safety and Diabetic conditions are like oil and water in some situations and this may be that one.

PORK

gsmiller · May 2005

We have really worked with this person and have actually sent the shoes to her doctor for him to check them out. We have also ordered her several different, more expensive, shoes to try. I think she must be at the point where she can't wear the shoes because of her overall foot condition.

Don D · May 2005

As a last ditch effort, you could invite a state vocational rehabilitation expert into your facility and have them review both the patient's limitations and the employer's requirements. Here, we have an engineer who must weigh almost 350 and I won't describe his leg and foot problems; but, we got him together with the rehab people and they solved his problem with prolonged standing and pounding concrete in the plant. They bought and delivered a riding scooter thing like none I've seen. Big as a small Toyota. It enables him to make his rounds fairly comfortably and we didn't have to terminate him. Maybe your state rehab agency could come up with a solution and pay for it as well. Won't cost you a thing to find out.

pork1 · May 2005

I WISH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYEE WELL, but it might just be the right time for her to discuss her situation and the physician's restriction, and the employer be moving her to the x-employee ranks so that in 6 months, she can have the same doctor help her in applying for and get SS disability. 6 months because the SSA will not even consider her application until she has been unemployed for 6 months. I know that sounds harash, but it is reality. We can be good and caring company for sometimes to long. The SSI Disability/Medicare provisions will mean more to her in the long run than the hours worked for your company while you try to be nice guys/girls and carry the disabled ee.

PORK

Don D · May 2005

You seem to make the assumption that the employer should be about the business of shoving people off into the world of disability entitlement programs. And you also seem to assume that the employee either wants that or will be better served in the long term by being there. What an odd set of assumptions. Had the original post had any indication of either of those assumptions, I could buy your counsel. However, the obligation and duty of the employer is simply to follow the law, perhaps the ADA in this case, and not to involve itself in speculation about how to ease somebody off the payroll onto disability income. I would not want to be explaining that one on the stand. I can just see the plaintiff sitting there bawling while I testified that I was doing what was in her best interest when I got rid of her rather than accommodating her.

Although your point may be perfectly valid, and we'll never know that, I would not counsel an HR practitioner to act on those sensitive assumptions.

pork1 · May 2005

DON: You obviously do not know the value of long term Social Security Disability for those of us who who are disabled, which includes medicare/medicaid.

It is very much the HR's responsibility to know of the government assistant programs and when to counsel our struggling employees with life time benefits verses the issues and value of working in a hostile "world of work", hostile only from the individual's self worth and personal mental anguish.

It is important for the HR to know the application efforts and the time frames of importance. I have assisted three employees with diabetic conditions move from the full time and struggling rolls of work to the Social Security rolls of disability and medical care. The biggest hurdle is the "6 month un-employed" and how to make ends meet in the care of myself and family.

They remain in contact with this office and have referred several good employees to us for jobs. The un-employment without charge to this company was also the waiting period of being unemployed for the SSI. It takes time and concern for the employee and their family to move this employee from the employed to the unemployed ranks.

To hold on to anyone of these employees for fear of reprocussions is a dis-service to the employee and the other employees, who are affected by the medical cost and "light duty or moderate duty employee", the production must go on, so the team carries the individual. Which for the disabled is a unpleasant thought, we all want to be well, but we are not, and must play with the hand dealt to us in life.

Sorry you disagreed "again" with my thoughts and actions of a professional HR.

PORK

Diabetic can't wear steel-toed shoes

Comments