The Way I See It: EEOC vs. Kohl's

This commentary refers to the following story:
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-sues-kohl-s-department-stores-disability-discrimination

I need to write about this lawsuit as my own interactions with the EEOC is less desirable and somewhat hilariously sad. I will describe my own experience with them in a future post.

First, let me say that the EEOC is a clueless government agency, that picks its fights by levels of stupidity.  This case ranks near the top of the stupidity meter, even though it feels like a "legitamite" case.  So, who will win this lawsuit?  Drum roll, please...

The winner will be Kohl's (or even better, be dismissed).   Here's my reasons why:

1:  It is not stated whether Ms. Manning was either a full-time or part-time employee.  If she was just a part-time employee, then Kohl's (nor any other employer) obligated to give her a set schedule.  They may have guidelines and time frames for part-timers, but like most companies part-time scheduling are not set in stone.  If she was a full-timer, then Ms. Manning may have a little bit more to support her case, but then again full-timers sometimes have their schedules changed if given prior advanced warning.  Many companies also have rotating schedules which Ms. Manning didn't like or didn't want.  Many companies also go by seniority when scheduling as well, even if someone transfers in from another location, those people are given seniority and given priority scheduling.  Also, no mention is given to what Ms. Manning availability was when she originally applied for when she was hired.  If Kohl's didn't like her availability, then they should not have even bothered interviewing her in the first place.

2:  Ms. Manning also claims that the change of hours created a "life-threatening condition".  Oh, please.  Ms. Manning, there are thousands of people who work in various jobs many more times stressful than working at Kohl's and have diabetes and aren't complaining.  Seriously, unless the store is having Ms. Manning land 747s in the parking lot, I can't think of any position that would be that stressful.  I think the most stressful thing about her diabetes that Ms. Manning should worry about is looking like Wilford Brimley with his big walrus mustache in her old age.

3:  Ms. Manning also states that she had discussed her problem with her manager orally.  Huge mistake there.  Anybody who has worked in any job that telling a manager anything will be the same as talking to a brick wall -- they never listen -- NEVER!!  Unless, you have something in writing it means nothing.  As far as the managers laughing at her, I am not surprised, but I expect them to deny it in writing.  Managers will always deny everything even if its in writing (a future post by me will affirm that one).  As far as bringing in a note, the manager can just deny he/she ever saw it and could also deny that any conversation ever happened.

4:  As far as accommodating other employees, more than likely they probably were accommodated for a once-in-a-while time not a permanent need. This is a huge difference because managers don't want to deal with disabilities in the workplace.  Yes, I said it.  They will do anything to eliminate employees with disabilities including lying to either get an employee to quit or eventually get fired, as was my case.

If Ms. Manning's illness was so life-threatening, why did she bother to continue to work?  It seems to me that there is a lot more to this story then what has been revealed.  I don't ever expect Ms. Manning will ever see one red cent, because the company's managers would be in denial of everything and consider Ms. Manning a problem employee.  It was this type of spinning of the facts that got me terminated from Staples.  Ms. Manning should just walk away from this whole situation and hope that she has not been black-listed by Kohl's as I was from Staples.

As far as Kohl's changing their ways and improve training to managers and employees, I highly doubt that this would EVER happen in a million years.  Companies would rather just not hire problem employees than suffer the consequences of hiring a problem potential employee.  There are way to many people looking for work that would be suited for Ms. Manning's position and never create a problem.