Immunocompromised Man Asserts Employer Terminated Him for Not Working in the Office

Who is telling the truth -- Pillsbury or a former employee?

Employers sometimes have difficulty learning that employees cannot always comply with every organizational expectation for the mere fact that workers are also human and affected by any of a number of unwanted life realities.

Pillsbury got angry about this inconvenient reality and finds itself in court over reactionary behavior towards a former employee with health problems.

Steven Miller, a litigation paralegal for the company, was fired, he and his attorneys claim because he did not return to work in the office due to him having a medical diagnosis of JAK2, a “cancerous condition” that put him at high risk of contracting COVID-19, Staci Zaretsky wrote at Above The Law.

Miller, Zaretsky wrote, had “submitted a letter from his doctor that urged him to work remotely, and the firm complied with his doctor’s orders, seeing as everyone else was still working from home.”

The initial dispute and eventual lasting conflict developed when Miller was terminated “shortly after he sent HR a January 26 letter from his oncologist requesting that he be allowed to work from home until July 2022 — a time that stood in conflict with the firm’s planned return-to-office date of February 22,” Zaretsky reported.

The American Lawyer detailed what Miller says happened:

Supervisors had cited poor performance as the reason for Miller’s termination, even though Miller’s most recent performance review had been positive, according to the complaint.

Miller claims that Pillsbury discriminated against him “based on his disability and retaliated against him for requesting reasonable accommodations for his disability.”

Miller is suing for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and for retaliatory termination. Pillsbury doesn’t sound concerned: “These allegations are without merit, and we are confident in our defense,” a company spokesperson stated.

What Say You? From what you’ve read here, who appears to have the facts and the pertinent ones, on their side and who is telling the truth?

Pillsbury is inferring that they are confident that Miller’s pain and anger is rooted in emotional reasoning and not facts, evidence and proof. He and his lawyers however have laid out a timeline and events that seem to back his allegations.

Consider this, if you will: It’s not outside the realm of possibility for an employee to receive a positive performance review, something go sideways with an employer relatively soon afterward and a reason for firing and ending the professional relationship magically present itself, as in be manufactured.

Risk: For Miller, he certainly doesn’t want to seek work and at the same time have to acknowledged a termination on job applications and in interviews. Even if his story seems credible, a sacking can be difficult to disprove as being unethical or illegal.

Miller could be harmed for a long while: career wise, financially, emotionally and physically.

For Pillsbury, if it prevails in court, it will move on feeling it was always in the legal, moral right (and maybe some or all of that is true) even if there was any wrongdoing committed. However, some current employees could judge the company poorly.

If Pillsbury loses in court, the reputation damage will be part of the public record in not only court documents but online. In addition, its current employees will learn of it.

Some talent the company may want to hire may discover the lawsuit — regardless of the outcome — and decide Pillsbury is not a trustworthy and attractive place to work.

Risk Management: Miller is doing what he feels he must for his future after, apparently doing what he felt possible to stay employed or be helped after termination. Pillsbury feels challenged when it feels it is in the “right” and believes corporate legal muscle is risk management.

If Miller, his attorneys and entire legal team can prove his allegations, Pillsbury will be proven in egregious error of its risk management and reputation risk decision-making.

Michael Toebe writes “Reputation Notes” and is the founder and specialist at Reputation Quality, a practice that serves and assists successful people and organizations in further building reputation as an asset and responsibly, ethically protecting, restoring or reconstructing it.

Subscribe for free or choose a paid subscription for “extra.” Whichever is appealing.

Want your services or products to be seen in Reputation Notes or discuss a partnership? Let’s talk about it to see how you can benefit.

Contact me (Michael) at Reputation.Notes@gmail.com and you and I can talk about your objectives and value offering and create an impressive visual ad and message to prominently, impressively display in the newsletter for a month at a time, or longer.