Merged Arday life and death

[d4m10n]

What exactly is the nature of your concern?

I suspect the claim at post #1,542 is just wrong.

 

[d4m10n]

In the case of maternity leave, there is no medical condition.

In the U.S. at least, the recovery period following childbirth qualifies as a serious health condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regardless of what became of the newborn.

 

[Steve]

Pretty sure it needs to be filed somewhere in order to ensure that only the right people have the right accommodations.

Are employees in Australia allowed to request flexible working arrangements on account of disability? If so, are employers required to destroy the documentation of the condition leading to the request? That seems incredibly inefficient.

Are pregnant people in Australia allowed to request maternity leave? If so, are employers required to destroy the documentation of the condition leading to the request? That seems incredibly inefficient.

Veering off into the deep straw, huh. You might want to review your original question.

 

[d4m10n]

You might want to review your original question.

Here you go: Are Aussie employers allowed to document work-impacting medical conditions? If legally required to provide reasonable accommodation, it seems like the particulars would have to matter.

 

[Steve]

Here you go: Are Aussie employers allowed to document work-impacting medical conditions? If legally required to provide reasonable accommodation, it seems like the particulars would have to matter.

"How do you guys know whom to allow in the more accessible parking slots?"

 

[d4m10n]

"How do you guys know whom to allow in the more accessible parking slots?"

No one actually answered whether Australian employers are legally allowed to question whether employees parking in those slots have documented a valid need for them, but that's just one example where I would expect documentation of a condition would have to be allowed.

(Unless of course Aussies never cheat on such things and it's all done on the honor system.)

 

[Steve]

No one actually answered whether Australian employers are legally allowed to question whether employees parking in those slots have documented a valid need for them, but that's just one example where I would expect documentation of a condition would have to be allowed.

(Unless of course Aussies never cheat on such things and it's all done on the honor system.)

If a person has a valid government issued accessible parking pass displayed then no questioning is necessary by an employer, or anyone else. That pass itself documents a valid need.

 

[d4m10n]

If a person has a valid government issued accessible parking pass displayed then no questioning is necessary by an employer, or anyone else. That pass itself documents a valid need.

And surely no one ever uses an invalid or stolen pass.

 

[Steve]

And surely no one ever uses an invalid or stolen pass.

Surely that does happen occasionally. Does that justify an employer breaking the law and asking questions they are not entitled to?

This derail has gotten rather silly on your part. I am out.

 

[d4m10n]

Does that justify an employer breaking the law and asking questions they are not entitled to?

I'd answer this question with one of my own about which privacy law makes it illegal to ask for valid and current documentation, but you're out.

 

[Rolfe]

Have you tried posting photographs of IQ test results with your screen name superimposed on them?

Uh, no. I got 161 on the Mensa test though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Where I live we have these parking slots labeled like this: ️

The government issues people parking passes based on demonstrated need, and many of those people are also government employees. No one seems to think it untoward that their employer knows about their medical condition.

FYI, that’s not how it works. The government doesn’t get your medical records, nor does your employer.

Your doctor assess you, and provide a document that says you’re either temporarily or permanently disabled. You give that to the DMV or employer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So…the records about persons held at the motor vehicle department (or federal or local equivalent) don't count as files about personnel? Seems a bit narrow.

They don’t contain medical information. Only certification of disability.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nobody is this confused.

Their name is d4m10n, not nobody.

 

[d4m10n]

The government doesn’t get your medical records

I never said anything about medical records, which fall under a whole other penumbra of legal protections.

You give that to the DMV or employer.

If you give it to your employer, said employer would have information regarding "staff medical conditions [in] personnel files," contra #1,542.

I don't think it is unreasonable (or unlawful) for employers who set aside accessible parking spots to document that said spots are being used by people who really need them in accordance with their current medical condition, rather than, say, someone who borrowed a piece of plastic from their homebound uncle.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where I live we have these parking slots labeled like this: ️

The government issues people parking passes based on demonstrated need, and many of those people are also government employees. No one seems to think it untoward that their employer knows about their medical condition.

One part of the government knowing something doesn't mean every part knows that thing. And yes, actually, it would be very untoward for your medical conditions to be part of your employee records, even as a handicapped government employee.

In relation to the Arday case, I would say the relevant parallel with handicap parking is that the permits DO NOT indicate what your handicap is. If Arday had any employer accomodations due to a disability (which I don't believe anyone has even claimed), his records would only need to list his limitations /accommodations, not the disability.

 

[Ziggurat]

And surely no one ever uses an invalid or stolen pass.

If we allow for cases of deceiving the government, we have to allow for cases of deceiving the employer directly. The fact that deception happens is irrelevant, it could happen either way. It's not a reason for the employer to involve themselves directly rather than defer to the government, especially when the stakes really aren't that high.

 

[d4m10n]

If Arday had any employer accomodations due to a disability (which I don't believe anyone has even claimed), his records would only need to list his limitations /accommodations, not the disability.

I'd have to look up UK law on point, but it's difficult to imagine how an employer could tailor reasonable accommodations to an unspecified condition.

 

[Steve]

I'd have to look up UK law on point, but it's difficult to imagine how an employer could tailor reasonable accommodations to an unspecified condition.

I'm back. Your "imagination" is lacking. You asked specifically about parking stalls, remember. The reasonable accommodations are providing a disabled parking stall to a person certified and documented by their doctor through the appropriate government agency, such as Department of Motor Vehicles, as disabled. The only persons in this process who are privy to the person's medical information are the person themselves and their doctor. Nobody else has, or is authorized to have, or needs to have, any medical information whatsoever.

You really seem to have a burr in your butt about this quite insignificant issue. Employers make myriad minor accommodations for their employees all the time without needing medical information added to their personnel files.

tata.

 

[lionking]

I never said anything about medical records, which fall under a whole other penumbra of legal protections.

If you give it to your employer, said employer would have information regarding "staff medical conditions [in] personnel files," contra #1,542.

I don't think it is unreasonable (or unlawful) for employers who set aside accessible parking spots to document that said spots are being used by people who really need them in accordance with their current medical condition, rather than, say, someone who borrowed a piece of plastic from their homebound uncle.

Wow.

A couple of things, firstly I worked in HR management for over 25 years, so I know what is and isn’t in personnel files. While workplace injuries are usually recorded, medical conditions are not. In fact, under state laws, employees are not required specify the medical conditions before taking sick leave, and doctors’ certificates usually just say “medical condition”.

Secondly, disability parking permits have nothing to do with personnel files. They are issued by local or state governments and require a doctor’s report.