Getting preemptive

[UMBRA]

I work in a teleservices company on the phones. I have a permanent eye condition that requires that I wear sunglasses in highly lighted areas, my eyes do not react well to UV light or to bright indoor lights.
I have a prescription to wear suglasses indoors from my opthamologist, and wear those large bulky Ray Charles cataract glasses I got from my opthamologist's office. Some of my female co-workers find the sunglasses unsettling as the is NO WAY they can tell where I am looking at any given time, I have no doubt that some of them find the sunglasses in short...creepy.
While I have not been called in to HR for inappropriate "leering" " gazing" I get the feeling it is just a matter of time. If I should be called in to HR and taken to task, what are my legal options?

 

[Patricia_Young]

Assuming the employer has at least 15 employees total, they are subject to the ADA. As such, they are required to enter into interactive discussions regarding "reasonable accommodations" to mitigate the effect of your disability to the extent it allows you to perform the primary functions of your job. And actually, it appears the employer has already done that, even if ADA accommodations have not been discussed as such.

I would recommend you be proactive and have this discussion with HR (if you have not already) BEFORE your tacky, paranoid co-workers go running to HR making unfounded accusations. If your company has any ethics, they will tell such employees to go pound sand.

 

[tpajet]

I'm not sure I would rock the boat. What is he/she going to tell HR - I think some of my co-workers might come to you someday with a case of paranoia? I would let it go for now, and if it does come up, simply take the script from the doctor in and explain that you have such medical condition and require the glasses.

 

[Patricia_Young]

No, I didn't say that. Not even close.

I said, make sure the discussions relative to the sunglasses being a reasonable accommodation under ADA have been had. If they have, and the company agrees that they are a "reasonable accommodation", then IF the paranoid employees complain about imagined slights, the employer can tell them to MYOB.

 

[jacksgal]

I agree with Patricia but what concerns me is why these workers would think he is staring at them? If the OP is doing his work I would suspect his head would be looking at his work and not facing the female co-workers. I see this going either way if that is case. The arguement could be made that he is gawking at his co-workers because he head is not facing his work its facing the co-workers. Where I am not saying OP is gawking at his co-workers I am saying they cannot say this if his head is buried in his work.

 

[UMBRA]

Duly noted

I agree with Patricia but what concerns me is why these workers would think he is staring at them? If the OP is doing his work I would suspect his head would be looking at his work and not facing the female co-workers. I see this going either way if that is case. The arguement could be made that he is gawking at his co-workers because he head is not facing his work its facing the co-workers. Where I am not saying OP is gawking at his co-workers I am saying they cannot say this if his head is buried in his work


Your use of the word " gawk" is duly noted. The nature of my job is such that for those of us blessed with an 85 or higher IQ , the job does not require that one immerse ones head in ones work. The work area is close quarters and relatively open so from time to time as do my co-workers I watch the comings and goings of my co-workers and do some people watching but nothing that would be construed as "gawking", " leering" by any reasonable person.

 

[jacksgal]

You misinterpt my meaning but ok. All I am getting out without judgment is why are these persons feeling your looking, gawking (insert term) if your doing your work!? I was playing Devil's advocate not passing judgment!

 

[Patricia_Young]

One cannot always be "looking at one's work". Try it some time. It's impossible.

 

[jacksgal]

Ok maybe I am not clear. I agree with you but why are these females making such claims if his gaze has not been normal or random in their (the females) view. I am not siding with females in this matter again playing Devil's Advocate. I do have a question for OP though. Why the IQ comment?

 

[tpajet]

Patricia - I think you misunderstood me a bit. If there has so far not been an issue, then why go bring it up. HR may ask why since so far they have been in compliance. What reasoning does the OP give - my co-workers might come talk to you? He could go talk to them, but I'd let it go until/if it actually becomes a problem.

 

[Patricia_Young]

I'm just trying to protect the OP's right to wear the glasses. If the company deems them a "reasonable acommodation" under the ADA, then that's the end of the story. If that hasn't been discussed, they could legally tell him to take them off.