Sue for slander in false claim?

[mrsmith]

The company I work for received notification from the EEOC that a separated employee filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination. He also filed a claim against me with the EEOC for "aiding and abetting" in a discriminatory act. I am the HR person. I did not make the decision to fire him, I simply processed his FMLA paperwork. (He was let go at the expiration of FMLA leave.) He was not discriminated against, by the way.

I am shocked and scared that he has taking such action against me personally. It has completely affected the ability for me to perform my job as I fear that I may be held personally accountable for discrimination. In HR, I have a high standard of ethics and would never discriminate.

I cannot sleep, I cannot eat, I cannot perform MY job as I am consumed with anxiety over this.

We are waiting for the EEOC to respond to see if there is in fact any merit in this claim.

My question is, if it is found that there is no merit to this claim, may I then sue this person for mental anguish? He has personally attacked me for no reason other than I am the HR person, he caused me serious anxiety, and dafamed my character by filing a false claim with the EEOC that I personally discriminate against those with disabilities. It's slander as far as I'm concerned.

I know I should just be glad that if the EEOC does not find merit to just leave it be, but this person has seriously affected me personnaly and I feel he should be held accountable for his actions.

 

[tpajet]

In order to win a slander/libel suit, you must proove 3 things.

1- that the claim was made,
2- that the claim was false,
3- that someone believed the claim.

1&2 are the easy part. You pretty much have that already. 3 is the gotcha part. If the EEOC finds there is no merrit to the claim, then they did not believe it. So the only way to proceed is if the former employee had told someone else on the side and they believed it. But then you would need them to testify.

If you are the HR person, then yo need to be prepared for people to make retalatory claims. I would say that if the EEOC wants to investigate, simply show them the proper documentaiton. The former employee is going to have to prove discrimination, and if you follow the law on your paperwork then you are fine.

That's not to say you boss migt not have issue with you, but hopefully they too understand this and can see it for what it is.

 

[theretoo]

the 'merit' of his claim will be found valid under eeoc failing to accomodate a disability, most likely

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-28-09.html

it is hr's responsibility to guide employer's on employment law to protect the company

as far as eeoc and the 'seperated' employee are concerned, you are a representative of the 'company', the employer, that allowed the action to take place. you will have to prove that you tried to stop the action taken against the employee

 

[mrsmith]

to theretoo

I understand the ADA and making reasonable accomodations for those with disabilities, but in this case the employee does not have a disability. The employee had shoulder surgery and needed at least a 2-month recovery period. The employee went on FMLA due to pain associated with the shoulder, but did not schedule the surgery until 2-months into FMLA. At that point, the employee only had 4 more weeks of FMLA.

After speaking with esteemed HR professionals, it was concluded that something of this nature does not appear to be a qualifying disability under the eyes of the ADA.

This person is not permanently disabled and not did that request an accomodation. Upper managment reviewed the FMLA and decided that extending FMLA (per MY recommendation; just to be safe) would not be the best option for the company, due to the nature of this person's job function and totaly inability to perform any of the essential functions of the job.

We had held their position for 12 weeks and economocally it would not make sense to continue to hold the position until this person was ready to rejoin the workforce.

Furthermore, in cases where the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job, a reasonable accomodation request (although in this case never made) can be denied. The person could not perform any of the essential functions of the job - per their own words - so extending FMLA was not considered a reasonable request.

 

[Patricia_Young]

Well, even if you had extended the leave after the FMLA time was exhausted, it wouldn't be FMLA, merely a leave of absence with no job protection.

 

[theretoo]

please remember the new adaaa amendments effective jan. '09...

if the employee was not able to perform any functions of the job, then they were still disabled under the law. until the employee has medical release to return to work with or without reasonable accomodation, then the employee was disabled. an employee does not need to be 'permenently disabled' to qualify under adaaa. under ada, maybe, however, that is why the laws have been changed because the definition was being too 'narrowly' construed.

http://www.hrtools.com/news/alerts/eeoc_approves_proposed_adaaa_regulations.aspx

Revised rules. On June 17, the EEOC voted to adopt the rules changes, which then went to the Office of Management and Budget for review, and to federal agencies.

"Congress recognized that the intent of the ADA was being misread, that its goals were being compromised, and that action had to be taken," said Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin. "These regulations will shift the focus of the courts away from further narrowing the definition of disability, and put it back where Congress intended when the ADA was enacted in 1990."

Consistent with the ADAAA, the proposed rule emphasizes that:

•the definition of disability – an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity – must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis;
•major life activities include "major bodily functions";
•mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and
•impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would "substantially limit" major life activities when active.
The proposed regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA's new standard for determining whether someone is "regarded as" as having a disability.

if the employee requested more time off to recover, that is their request for reasonable accomodation. additional time off is a reasonable accomodation.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#leave

see sections 17, 18 and 19 in the above link

is it not possible to hire a temporary worker to work in place of the disabled employee until their return....

differences between fmla and ada

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/fmlaada.html