15 ms·

Employee’s unwanted birthday party nets him $450k after lawsuit

141 points by sharkweek 5y ago

pnemonic 5y ago
>>Julie Brazil, the founder and chief operating officer of Gravity Diagnostics, claims it was the other employees who were victimized What the actual hell? Who is this alien impostor? Calling sus on Julie Brazil.
- giantg2 5y ago
  They could have sort of been. It sounds like the manager is an ass. It's possible the other employees were planning/participating at the boss's direction and then felt bad about the situation when they found out.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    It sounds like the sort of attiude you might see in a company that is mostly a sales organization, full of "Type A" extroverted people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mikece 5y ago
The only thing that surprises me about this story is how small the verdict was. How did this not go for seven figures?
- simulate-me 5y ago
  He was awarded money for loss of wages and emotional distress. I don't think he lost seven figures of wages, and how much emotional distress did he suffer? At least personally, it would hard for me to say he suffered millions of dollars worth of emotional distress (which is something millions of people experience every day for free).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- s_dev 5y ago
  Half a million seems like a lot for this ordeal. He shouldn't have been fired but I'm not sure that payout is proportional. You think it's too small but I think it's too big.
  - mikece 5y ago
    You think no other potential future employers will hear about him and this case? The actions of the previous employer impugn his reputation as a future employee. While not exactly legal, I'm sure companies would find a way to say they don't think he's a good fit for their company out of fear of the consequences of what could happen should he have a panic attack.
    - sudden_dystopia 5y ago
      You aren’t wrong, but future wages are mostly hypothetical and indemnification is usually for incurred pain and suffering. For example, say he typically spends 5 years on average at every job he has ever had and he was on year 4 at this job. History says he was going to move on soon. Or maybe he is 63 and they compute retirement at 65. Another aspect, I typically see injury lawsuits for things like cervical injuries with fusions settle for like $150k so in that regard, $450k seems like he made out pretty well. Fatalities depend on age, but even then we are only talking about a few million for a young person.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  the vast majority of outcomes are small. it's just that the 7-9 figure cases get all the media attention. A 9-figure case s more click-worthy than $100k.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Wrongful dismissal is key point. With some distress. That really isn't worth millions just enough to replaces the lost wages and then some on top.
- moistly 5y ago
- elliekelly 5y ago
  It's incredibly difficult to get people without anxiety to fully appreciate just how debilitating and "costly" it can be for a person and I suspect the damages awarded reflect the public/jury's lack of understanding and empathy.
PaywallBuster 5y ago
mostly because he got fired after his "reaction" to the small lunch organized by the company PS: I'm just justifying the 450k reward as being fired for no reason (his reaction). It's understandable
- dymk 5y ago
  His "reaction" was leaving the situation to deal with his panic attack. His employer refused to make reasonable accommodations for his disability, which in this case was no action at all. Further, they did the exact opposite of what he'd asked for in advance.
  - minimaxir 5y ago
    Note that "reasonable accommodations" is a term of art more for ADA cases and other federal bodies, which doesn't appear to be the case here. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/accommodations https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/ac...
    - dymk 5y ago
      In what sense does it not apply here? The ADA requires that all employers, public and private, make reasonable accommodations for the disabilities of those they employ (modulo some exceptions, which do not seem to apply here).
      - minimaxir 5y ago
        IANAL, but my understanding is that following reasonable accommodations is a documented process for both parties, while the "don't throw a birthday party for me" was an informal request. > Berling has an anxiety disorder, said his attorney, Tony Bucher, and his birthday is a source of stress, so his client went to the person at the company who throws the parties and asked them not to. > “The person who was responsible for the birthday parties who he talked to flat out forgot about his request,” Bucher said. “She didn’t do it to be mean. She said she would accommodate it and she just forgot.” https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
themodelplumber 5y ago
> “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do,” So they have been able to confirm they have a working layer of security theater, on top of forcing employees to receive office birthday parties? That's weird. And then they dive behind seemingly irrelevant procedural cover like that when an employee is forced to walk out in embarrassment, due to a health condition? That's creepy.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  Is that really security theater if they removed his access to the building, alerted management, and sent out security reminders that he should have have access to the building? What's the "Theater" part? That sounds like better security than most companies where they have a hard time just removing an employee's access, and even if they do, they have no established process to tell employees that he shouldn't be allowed in. I left my badge at home once, I was wearing my company logo jacket and tailgated in behind a couple employees I didn't know, one even held the door open for me. If I'd been terminated and banned from the office, I'd have had no trouble getting back into the office. We've instituted a "no-tailgating" policy since then, but there's no enforcement and is widely ignored.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    The point is not that it was not effective - It was plenty effective. The part that makes it theatrical is that the employee was of no threat to anyone. His panic attack was caused by the (perceived) threat of being forced into a public gathering, and injury was added to insult by the actual threat of having security "escort" him from the building.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used company policies that are only necessary in the USA to stop him returning in case he returned to do harm. It's not theatre but it sure sounds theatrical, when they could have apologised, given him some time to regroup his emotions and then left it at that. When I was much younger I had a nervous breakdown at work during a period of extreme personal stress -- I really absolutely and totally lost the plot. Quite probably upset a lot of people, many of whom did not see me the same afterwards. Though more fallout for me personally; it was difficult to be there and my reaction undermined me. I was treated with enormous -- and I must say on reflection completely unearned -- respect and at no point did the company feel they had to do this. Because I'm not in the USA. It's worth considering that many places in the USA seem to think the problem in their culture with violent crime is not guns but the fact that mentally ill people can get guns and weaponry of all sorts. What follows from that is company policy that seriously upset people must necessarily be treated as a threat. And this sort of "bar him from the building because he panicked" outcome is the logical conclusion of this attitude.
laserdancepony 5y ago
Easy money.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  I've never suffered a panic attack personally, but being forced into a panic attack by your employer then being fired for it doesn't sound like an easy way to make money.
  - briandear 5y ago
    $450k worth of money. Soldiers often get mentally destroyed in wars and they don’t get squat. I’ll trade a panic attack for $450k any day.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      Ahh right, it's the old "others have it worse so he doesn't deserve it" argument.
    - paulpauper 5y ago
      the lawyer will get a chunk of that, plus it may still be negotiate lower, and long delay before company pays out
minimaxir 5y ago
This reads like something from /r/legaladvice, except not faked as a writing exercise.
- sharkweek 5y ago
  I took some pre law classes in college and this was the exact kind of scenario we’d get in exams. Interesting thought exercises when it comes to interpretation of how law applies.
- BelieveMeImAWiz 5y ago
  I'm almost certain this all originated in a post from /r/legaladvice Here is the summary thread regarding it. It's worse than the article makes it out to be. The OP almost committed suicide due to the stress https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/topifb/oops_doesnt_want_to_celebrate_their_birthday_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/topi... Edit: I'm almost certain I was wrong. As pointed out elsewhere the dates don't line up. However it's a case of the exact same thing happening in a Legal Advice thread
timr 5y ago
> When the company threw him a lunchtime party against his wishes, it triggered a panic attack and he left abruptly to spend his break in his car. Four days later, after his office managers confronted him about his reaction to the party, he was fired from the Northern Kentucky company, court records show. The headline sounds ridiculous, but this detail explains everything. Getting fired because you had a panic attack in response to an optional thing you explicitly told them not to do? That's lunacy.
- hnmullany 5y ago
  - duxup 5y ago
    "People have strong opinions on how other people should behave." Humans do.
    - serf 5y ago
      >Humans do. Given, but it's understood that certain places have narrower ranges of 'perceived acceptable behavior', no? Simply stated: I would get less odd stares while on my unicycle on the streets of San Francisco than I would elsewhere. (no, I can't ride a unicycle :( )
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Yeah, thankfully Californians have no such opinions.
  - dartharva 5y ago
    > That's Kentucky for you. People have strong opinions on how other people should behave. I don't think there's any place on earth where this doesn't apply.
  - cjbgkagh 5y ago
    Ever not recycle in front of a German?
Aaronstotle 5y ago
Really wonder what the though process was regarding firing an employee who told them not to throw a party because they have an anxiety disorder, for having an anxiety attack.
- sudden_dystopia 5y ago
  The million dollar question. They were probably got embarrassed and fired them in a rage/panic for “causing” them the embarrassment.
  - Aaronstotle 5y ago
    I'm surprised their legal/HR didn't push back or realize how much more this would cost them, I suspect your right that they felt embarrassed.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    I've been in socially-similar situations to this one, and I suspect it went a bit like this: Person says "don't do this thing, it will hurt me." Group says, "no it won't," or otherwise dismisses/forgets. Group does the thing. Person is injured, predictably, and takes protective/evasive actions. Group or subset of group becomes offended that person has taken protective/evasive actions, correctly believing actions to implicate the group's bad behavior. Group or subset of group smears their victim, amplifies or otherwise doubles-down on their initial misunderstanding or neglect of person's request not to injure them.
annoyingnoob 5y ago
Being employed means that you have to share certain personal information with the company, like your birth date, your address, your social security number, etc. But you don't expect the company to turn around and dox you to other employees. I'd argue that it was not the company's place to share this person's birth date with anyone, it was the company's place to keep private information private.
Latty 5y ago
"Unwanted birthday party" is such a misleading thing to claim as the root cause, reminds me of the McDonald's coffee case, framing very legitimate lawsuits as frivolous. Employer put him into a bad situation against his will, when he'd warned them and it wasn't necessary for his job, and then fired him when he had the reaction he'd foreseen. Obvious wrongful termination and horrific management.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It's literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability. Edit 2: someone here provided the additional type of information that I was interested in. It wasn't just the temperature, but also that the cup had a design flaw that made it likely to collapse if you took the lid off. Thanks!
  - watwut 5y ago
    Because a lot of effort went into trying to convince people that this particular result was correct rather then failure.
  - vkou 5y ago
    The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard. McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing. The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs. She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling. The award was later reduced. If the answer to bad corporate behaviour is not regulation, but rather lawsuits, then that lawsuit perfectly encapsulated the series of legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor, that has been alerted of a problem in their product, and refuses to resolve it.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing." Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings/awards. "The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs." That's an outcome/result. That has no real bearing on the culpability. "She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling." Again, nothing speaking to culpability here. "The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard." Ok, so this is basically what my comment said. It seems 185 is about 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. It also has a warning on it (jury said it's not big enough, but maybe we should have everyone sign waivers first?). "legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor" Depends on your viewpoint as to who is "bad". Edit: why disagree with this?
colpabar 5y ago
As someone who also does not like being the center of attention, I wish this man got more money, and that this company would go bankrupt. FUCK these people. They directly caused this man to have two panic attacks, BOTH of which could have been avoided by literally doing nothing, and then they fire him? Something that drives me absolutely nuts is that most people assume that anyone who wishes to avoid social interaction is actually really just too afraid to be social, and that forcing them to do so is an acceptable thing to do. It's not! It's incredibly callous and insensitive and it's something that should only ever be considered by extremely close friends. Please respect people's wishes when they say they don't want a party, especially if you are just coworkers!
- unmole 5y ago
  > I wish this man got more money, and that this company would go bankrupt. Because fuck proportionality and fuck every employee and shareholder of the company even if they had nothing to do with this?
- paulpauper 5y ago
  the lawyer will get probably a good chunk of it and the company will drag its feet to avoid payment or reduce the amount . not that much money. Goes to show how most outcomes are much smaller than headlines about tens or hundred million dollar settlements.
  - everfree 5y ago
    After an award is given in a judgement, the time for a company to reduce the amount is long past, and they can only drag their feet for so long. With the proper filing, the plaintiff can put a lien on the company's bank accounts, and in egregious cases can even walk up with a cop and start taking stuff from the company to satisfy the award (a "sheriff's sale"). You're right that the lawyer will probably get a good chunk of it, though.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      The lawyer will probably get between 1/3 to 1/2 of the award. That's how they afford to take cases on a "no fee if you don't win" contingency basis.
olliej 5y ago
So it’s a wrongful dismissal suit, not even “just” having a party after being explicitly told not to. Person has an anxiety disorder, so explicitly said not to have a party. His manager had a party anyway, triggering a panic attack. He ran away to his car to recover and they fired him.
illuminerdy 5y ago
The article doesn't give enough information to determine whether this was a reasonable judgment. What actually happened when they discussed the event afterwards that led to his termination? That could have been completely justified even if they had originally been in the wrong for ignoring his request.
sudden_dystopia 5y ago
Dumb title. He was fired because of his reaction to the birthday party. And he won the lawsuit because of the termination, rightfully so. He didn’t win the lawsuit because of the party, he won because of wrongful termination.
- moate 5y ago
  He got 120,000 for lost wages and the other 300,000 dollars was for mental distress. You could attribute that exclusively to the firing, or more reasonably, to his company causing him to had 2 panic attacks related to a birthday party. Title is accurate.
hvs 5y ago
Good for him. The callous disregard for _pre-stated_ wishes and then trying to claim that "akstually HE was the real risk to OUR employees" shows that any sense of "friendly workspace" they are trying to encourage by having birthday parties (??!) for employees is just a thin-veneer over what is more reminiscent of a scene from "Office Space".
- polski-g 5y ago
  Its entirely probable that they did not accommodate his wishes AND he was violent.
  - sha256sum 5y ago
    Strangely, this did not stop the jury from ruling in his favor. At what point can we give this person the benefit of the doubt that he was mistreated by his employer?
    - polski-g 5y ago
      Not honoring his wishes was a mistreatment...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tiahura 5y ago
There seem to be some missing facts. The statement from the business indicates that their defense for firing him was that they reasonably believed his flip-out could be the start of going postal. Without knowing what he said, it’s hard to judge. Since the jury found for plaintiff, I’m going to guess they didn’t see it as a credible threat.
- Jiro 5y ago
  If you were an employer who fired someone in this situation for no reason other than having a panic attack without hurting anyone, you'd probably lie and say that the panic attack put you in fear that he'd hurt someone.
dragonwriter 5y ago
No, the birthday party didn't. The company wrongfully firing him for the resulting panic attack did. I mean, doing the birthday party after the employee specifically asked not to for that exact reason is inexcusable to start with. Whoever decided that should have been fired, not the employee.
freedomben 5y ago
there are tons of comments here lambasting the company, which was my first reaction too, but then I noticed something important and think maybe the article might be leaving out some pretty important information. "Panic attack" can be pretty vague. I have them and it's usually just trouble breathing. However, everyone experiences them differently. A possible hint that the article is possibly omitting is here (emphasis mine): > “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do,” Brazil told Link NKY. “As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy. It sounds like he may have done something physically violent to somebody. Of course it's terrible that they put him in that situation to begin with, but it does seem pretty plausible to me that if he became violent and injured a person (who may not have been his supervisor that ignored his request) that does sound like their reaction isn't nearly as unreasonable as it sounds when you omit all detail of violence. It would be great to get some more details. For the record I'm not saying the firing was justified - I have no idea. Obviously a jury who does know decided it wasn't justified, and they have a lot more information than I/we do so they're probably right. All I'm saying is there may be some important information that we don't have that makes it a little less clear-cut evil.
- chihuahua 5y ago
  Yes, it would really help to have access to the whole story, not just the part that is favorable to one side of this dispute.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The jury had that, and made a decision accordingly.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      Yes, to be clear I (and I don't think parent) is disputing the jury's decision. I'm pointing out that the article (which is what everybody here is reacting to) isn't providing any info about what the "violence" was, or even acknowledging that it exists other than the part where they quoted the company rep. If the "violence" was him saying something mean/inappropriate or something (which I don't consider violence but many people do think speech can be violence) that would be largely irrelevant. But if he beat the shit out of somebody, that would make this case far less egregious and IMHO would make many of the reactionary comments here look terrible.
duxup 5y ago
The title seems like bait. They fired him because he had a panic attack, the party triggered it but wasn't the reason for the judgment.
gwbas1c 5y ago
I want to know more. This quote is really strange: > As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy Did the man really react violently? Or is Gravity Diagnostics not willing to admit that they handled the situation incorrectly?
- phreack 5y ago
  That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cause him to, say, punch someone in the face? There's so little detail in the article that one could imagine a scenario where firing the employee doesn't sound like a 100% asshole move.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Harder to imagine a scenario where firing the employee wasn't a 100% asshole move and the jury ruled in his favor though.
  - moate 5y ago
    If someone says "do not do this no job-function related thing, it will be bad for me" and you do that, there's very few reactions that I feel would not still be the company's fault. Someone wanted cake and some goof off time and was using this man's birthday to meet that want in spite of it causing him distress. Everything after that is because of this cause. "This guy physically attacked me after I chose, against warning, to put him in a panic state" is an admission of guilt not a deflection of blame in my mind. Pretty classic neuro-typical behavior tbh.
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      He didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.
- astura 5y ago
mywittyname 5y ago
I can definitely empathize with this person. Anxiety issues are no joke. I've had panic attacks and they felt substantially more terrifying than the times where I've been in legitimate danger. And the triggers are so mundane. I once spent 20 minutes sitting on the floor in a grocery store after seeing an old friend, because, one of my triggers is seriously seeing people outside of the context where I normally do. This is emotionally equivalent to your coworkers putting you in a room with a lion as your birthday celebration. I'm sure people won't believe me. Even if you don't, if someone ever tells you that they don't like being the center of attention, just take their word for it.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  That is so interesting that you can react worse than when in real danger and I think that probably matches some of the people I know who struggle with anxiety. I wonder if that is simply because most of the time one gets into real danger, there is no lead up to it, it just happens quickly and unexpectedly - no time to dwell on it.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    I've nearly drowned, been hung by the neck, threatened with a knife, jumped by a gang, strangled to unconsciousness, been stuck in a hole and almost fallen off a few cliffs. An anxiety reaction feels nearly identical to a near death experience except it lasts way longer and there is no point where you escape to safety. However, I think the near death experiences were worse because they would cause even more anxiety later. I still freak out near knives and hate when anyone comes up behind me. People touching my neck will send me off kicking and screaming.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      My goodness, well I think I know where your anxiety came from.
      - foxyv 4y ago
        This kind of stuff is more common than you would think. My room mate had it MUCH worse than I did as a kid. As the Buddha said: "In life there will be suffering/stress/pain/dissatisfaction."
jrootabega 5y ago
There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. Having long ago experienced panic disorder that overlapped with my professional life, I am grateful for having been accommodated and sympathetic to anyone who experiences it. But it's not clear here that the employee explained the full situation to their boss. Just that they said they didn't want a party, which a lot of people would say. Enduring some uncomfortable and unexpected social situations at work is a reasonable expectation of an employee. Enduring unexpected work stress in general is a reasonable expectation of an employee. It's not inherently evil to fire an employee who has poor reactions to workplace stress. Panic attacks as a result of an unwanted birthday party are not that far off from panic attacks from having to meet a new co-worker, boss, or give a talk to even a small group. But again, there's not enough in this article to really anlalyze. It's infotainment contrasting of the inanity of a birthday party with the firing/damages.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. That the jury ruled in his favor is a significant detail.
- colanderman 5y ago
  He was fired after having a second panic attack when his managers called him in to a meeting and "accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy". [1] [1] https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    That's some dystopian shit right there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 5y ago
  There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. When someone asks for something you should respect their wishes, and this company chose to ignore that and follow the protocol despite being asked not to. From that alone I know that this company is not somewhere good to work. Putting following the rules when you don't need to ahead of people's welfare is a huge red flag.
PKop 5y ago
Why is it not a legitimate cause for firing that an employees can't fit in socially amongst the other employees and take part in company functions? Companies have all sort of annoying requirements and tasks employees must do, how is this one different? Isn't company culture a thing many find necessary to uphold? Maybe birthday parties are part of this company's culture. One might say it's not necessary to the job, but is this true? Social events and employee camaraderie are arguably necessary to a well functioning workplace. I'm not even arguing that parties are necessary but that a company can decide for themselves if they are no? And that if someone is so uncomfortable taking part then perhaps they don't belong at the company. Why is it a legitimate expectation that a company and its employees must accommodate your problems to such a degree?
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  In the US, the americans with disabilities act requires workplaces to provide reasonable accommodation for disabilities. They're not required to hire you if you're incapable of doing your job as per it's description, and they're not required to accommodate to an unreasonable degree. Not throwing someone a birthday party sounds like a perfectly reasonable accommodation. Beyond that, people have to push back at those annoying requirements. Should a company be allowed to have whatever requirements it wants to have? Should I? Do we belong to them?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  They fit in fine, as far as job functions are concerned. It's explicitely not ok for 'social fit' to be a firing offence, isn't it? That's another word for "Not our kind of person" which opens an ugly door. Parties targeting one person are so, so problematic. Nobody asked anybody to 'accomodate' this person. They asked to be left alone, which is literally zero accomodation.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > explicitely not ok for 'social fit' to be a firing offence, isn't it? Most employment is at will. That permits firing someone for not being a good fit. (You can't define "fit" however you feel. But someone not getting along with their colleagues and not responding to feedback would generally be fireable for it.)
scelerat 5y ago
A lot of strong opinions here based on one vague article. The CEO says the plaintiff was fired for violating a workplace violence policy. Obviously the court disagreed. Why? The lessons for the wider world will be found in the case details themselves, few of which are actually in this article.
- js2 5y ago
  The original reporting is much clearer: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f... 1. Kevin Berling didn’t want Gravity Diagnostics, his former employer, to throw him a birthday party. 2. “The person who was responsible for the birthday parties who he talked to flat out forgot about his request. She didn’t do it to be mean. She said she would accommodate it and she just forgot.” 3. The party was thrown anyway, and Berling began to have a panic attack. He went to his car and worked through some breathing techniques. He then went back upstairs and finished his workday. 4. The following day Berling was called into a conference room to have a discussion about the party. According to Berling, she started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy. 5. He started to have another panic attack. At this point he starts employing other coping techniques that he’s worked on for years with his therapist. “The way he described it is he started hugging himself and asked them to please stop.” 6. The two employees in the conference room asked Berling to stop, and when he didn’t, they walked out. Once the panic attack had subsided, Berling walked out of the conference room and was asked to leave the building. He was let go a couple of days later. On points 5 and 6: Berling's attorney: "They way [the Gravity Diagnostics employees] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent. They made assumptions that he was dangerous based off of his disability and not off of any evidence that he was violent. If he had made violent gestures Gravity Diagnostics would have had grounds to fire him, but he didn’t do anything threatening." Gravity Diagnostics COO: "My employees deescalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do."
  - 5y ago
coolso 5y ago
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  I think a lot of it is genetic, the poor guy should have picked better genes.
temp8964 5y ago
The first panic attack made sense. What’s the reason for the second panic attack?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > A day later after he arrived for work, he was called into a meeting with two superiors, who “confronted and criticized” him for how he reacted to the birthday party he did not want, according to the lawsuit. This caused him to have another panic attack.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    I read that, that’s why I have the question. What’s the reason for the second panic attack? Confronted and criticized?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It literally says exactly that, including the line "This caused him to have another panic attack."
    - anaxag0ras 5y ago
      > According to my client, she started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy. He started to have another panic attack, Bucher said. Original article: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
      - temp8964 5y ago
        Thanks!
astura 5y ago
Honestly, birthday parties are so incredibly fraught with potential issues they should really not be "celebrated" in the office on an individual level. You have all sorts of people who'd really rather not - not just people with anxiety issues, but also religious prohibitions (Jehovah's Witness), and just personal preference. Some people don't like it when others even know their birthday.
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  I figure at least ask the birthday person the day before.
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Fuck toxic work environments.
colanderman 5y ago
Source article has more details: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
wnevets 5y ago
> Four days later, after his office managers confronted him about his reaction to the party, he was fired from the Northern Kentucky company, court records show. I feel like we're burying the lead by suggesting he got money because of an unwanted party. He was fired because of a medical disorder triggered by the party and was compensated for wrongful termination.
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  He had the foresight to ask his employer to make a reasonable accommodations for his disability. Not having a birthday party seems reasonable enough to me.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Disability aside, a lot of people don't like birthday parties at work, for various reasons. For example I think some religions forbid celebrating ones birthday. Other people just don't like it and think it's inappropriate for an office setting. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to not have one's birthday recognized at work, for whatever reason stated or unstated.
    - cjbgkagh 5y ago
      Totally agree. People should not be forced to have a birthday party.
js2 5y ago
The order of events is somewhat hard to follow from the submitted link. The original reporting is much clearer: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
bradgranath 5y ago
We're all watching Severance, right?
- moate 5y ago
  I imagine the reaction would have been so much worse had it been a Waffle Party.
bluecalm 5y ago
My beef with this kind of verdicts is that the perpetrators are not punished. The company pays reasonable compensation/damages to the plantiff. The managers who ignored his requests and caused the whole mess go along with their lives without any consequences. There should be some mechanism to enforce responsibility for shitty behaviour.
meatsauce 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tpoacher 5y ago
> "... and later apologized for having a panic attack" This is just sad.
stuntkite 5y ago
Similar things have happened to me. I've gotten pretty good at ditching out on the events stuff and eventually leaving after it gets bad. My birthday is mine, you don't get to use it just because I have to give it to you for tax reasons. I don't want you cake pops. I want to do work. This has lead to making things worse and I've had segments of people in companies target me for my unwillingness to mess with that stuff. I have left jobs over things that read like this. I never thought about suing. It would just be such a huge pain and I'd already be looking for a new job. If I end up in a space where this happens again, I'll have my attorney draft a strongly worded letter or maybe add some lines to my employee agreement saying that they don't own my likeness so I'm not going to appear in promotional materials, you can't tell anyone my birthday, and I don't want any weird awards or whatever. They'll sign it... forget... and then when I have to quit it'll make the lawsuit easier.

141 points by sharkweek 5y ago

>>Julie Brazil, the founder and chief operating officer of Gravity Diagnostics, claims it was the other employees who were victimized What the actual hell? Who is this alien impostor? Calling sus on Julie Brazil.

giantg2 5y ago
They could have sort of been. It sounds like the manager is an ass. It's possible the other employees were planning/participating at the boss's direction and then felt bad about the situation when they found out.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  It sounds like the sort of attiude you might see in a company that is mostly a sales organization, full of "Type A" extroverted people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mikece 5y ago

The only thing that surprises me about this story is how small the verdict was. How did this not go for seven figures?

simulate-me 5y ago
He was awarded money for loss of wages and emotional distress. I don't think he lost seven figures of wages, and how much emotional distress did he suffer? At least personally, it would hard for me to say he suffered millions of dollars worth of emotional distress (which is something millions of people experience every day for free).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
s_dev 5y ago
Half a million seems like a lot for this ordeal. He shouldn't have been fired but I'm not sure that payout is proportional. You think it's too small but I think it's too big.
- mikece 5y ago
  You think no other potential future employers will hear about him and this case? The actions of the previous employer impugn his reputation as a future employee. While not exactly legal, I'm sure companies would find a way to say they don't think he's a good fit for their company out of fear of the consequences of what could happen should he have a panic attack.
  - sudden_dystopia 5y ago
    You aren’t wrong, but future wages are mostly hypothetical and indemnification is usually for incurred pain and suffering. For example, say he typically spends 5 years on average at every job he has ever had and he was on year 4 at this job. History says he was going to move on soon. Or maybe he is 63 and they compute retirement at 65. Another aspect, I typically see injury lawsuits for things like cervical injuries with fusions settle for like $150k so in that regard, $450k seems like he made out pretty well. Fatalities depend on age, but even then we are only talking about a few million for a young person.
paulpauper 5y ago
the vast majority of outcomes are small. it's just that the 7-9 figure cases get all the media attention. A 9-figure case s more click-worthy than $100k.
Ekaros 5y ago
Wrongful dismissal is key point. With some distress. That really isn't worth millions just enough to replaces the lost wages and then some on top.
moistly 5y ago
elliekelly 5y ago
It's incredibly difficult to get people without anxiety to fully appreciate just how debilitating and "costly" it can be for a person and I suspect the damages awarded reflect the public/jury's lack of understanding and empathy.

PaywallBuster 5y ago

mostly because he got fired after his "reaction" to the small lunch organized by the company PS: I'm just justifying the 450k reward as being fired for no reason (his reaction). It's understandable

dymk 5y ago
His "reaction" was leaving the situation to deal with his panic attack. His employer refused to make reasonable accommodations for his disability, which in this case was no action at all. Further, they did the exact opposite of what he'd asked for in advance.
- minimaxir 5y ago
  Note that "reasonable accommodations" is a term of art more for ADA cases and other federal bodies, which doesn't appear to be the case here. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/accommodations https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/ac...
  - dymk 5y ago
    In what sense does it not apply here? The ADA requires that all employers, public and private, make reasonable accommodations for the disabilities of those they employ (modulo some exceptions, which do not seem to apply here).
    - minimaxir 5y ago
      IANAL, but my understanding is that following reasonable accommodations is a documented process for both parties, while the "don't throw a birthday party for me" was an informal request. > Berling has an anxiety disorder, said his attorney, Tony Bucher, and his birthday is a source of stress, so his client went to the person at the company who throws the parties and asked them not to. > “The person who was responsible for the birthday parties who he talked to flat out forgot about his request,” Bucher said. “She didn’t do it to be mean. She said she would accommodate it and she just forgot.” https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...

themodelplumber 5y ago

> “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do,” So they have been able to confirm they have a working layer of security theater, on top of forcing employees to receive office birthday parties? That's weird. And then they dive behind seemingly irrelevant procedural cover like that when an employee is forced to walk out in embarrassment, due to a health condition? That's creepy.

Johnny555 5y ago
Is that really security theater if they removed his access to the building, alerted management, and sent out security reminders that he should have have access to the building? What's the "Theater" part? That sounds like better security than most companies where they have a hard time just removing an employee's access, and even if they do, they have no established process to tell employees that he shouldn't be allowed in. I left my badge at home once, I was wearing my company logo jacket and tailgated in behind a couple employees I didn't know, one even held the door open for me. If I'd been terminated and banned from the office, I'd have had no trouble getting back into the office. We've instituted a "no-tailgating" policy since then, but there's no enforcement and is widely ignored.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  The point is not that it was not effective - It was plenty effective. The part that makes it theatrical is that the employee was of no threat to anyone. His panic attack was caused by the (perceived) threat of being forced into a public gathering, and injury was added to insult by the actual threat of having security "escort" him from the building.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used company policies that are only necessary in the USA to stop him returning in case he returned to do harm. It's not theatre but it sure sounds theatrical, when they could have apologised, given him some time to regroup his emotions and then left it at that. When I was much younger I had a nervous breakdown at work during a period of extreme personal stress -- I really absolutely and totally lost the plot. Quite probably upset a lot of people, many of whom did not see me the same afterwards. Though more fallout for me personally; it was difficult to be there and my reaction undermined me. I was treated with enormous -- and I must say on reflection completely unearned -- respect and at no point did the company feel they had to do this. Because I'm not in the USA. It's worth considering that many places in the USA seem to think the problem in their culture with violent crime is not guns but the fact that mentally ill people can get guns and weaponry of all sorts. What follows from that is company policy that seriously upset people must necessarily be treated as a threat. And this sort of "bar him from the building because he panicked" outcome is the logical conclusion of this attitude.

laserdancepony 5y ago

Easy money.

Johnny555 5y ago
I've never suffered a panic attack personally, but being forced into a panic attack by your employer then being fired for it doesn't sound like an easy way to make money.
- briandear 5y ago
  $450k worth of money. Soldiers often get mentally destroyed in wars and they don’t get squat. I’ll trade a panic attack for $450k any day.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    Ahh right, it's the old "others have it worse so he doesn't deserve it" argument.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    the lawyer will get a chunk of that, plus it may still be negotiate lower, and long delay before company pays out

minimaxir 5y ago

This reads like something from /r/legaladvice, except not faked as a writing exercise.

sharkweek 5y ago
I took some pre law classes in college and this was the exact kind of scenario we’d get in exams. Interesting thought exercises when it comes to interpretation of how law applies.
BelieveMeImAWiz 5y ago
I'm almost certain this all originated in a post from /r/legaladvice Here is the summary thread regarding it. It's worse than the article makes it out to be. The OP almost committed suicide due to the stress https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/topifb/oops_doesnt_want_to_celebrate_their_birthday_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/topi... Edit: I'm almost certain I was wrong. As pointed out elsewhere the dates don't line up. However it's a case of the exact same thing happening in a Legal Advice thread

timr 5y ago

> When the company threw him a lunchtime party against his wishes, it triggered a panic attack and he left abruptly to spend his break in his car. Four days later, after his office managers confronted him about his reaction to the party, he was fired from the Northern Kentucky company, court records show. The headline sounds ridiculous, but this detail explains everything. Getting fired because you had a panic attack in response to an optional thing you explicitly told them not to do? That's lunacy.

hnmullany 5y ago
- duxup 5y ago
  "People have strong opinions on how other people should behave." Humans do.
  - serf 5y ago
    >Humans do. Given, but it's understood that certain places have narrower ranges of 'perceived acceptable behavior', no? Simply stated: I would get less odd stares while on my unicycle on the streets of San Francisco than I would elsewhere. (no, I can't ride a unicycle :( )
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Yeah, thankfully Californians have no such opinions.
- dartharva 5y ago
  > That's Kentucky for you. People have strong opinions on how other people should behave. I don't think there's any place on earth where this doesn't apply.
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  Ever not recycle in front of a German?

Aaronstotle 5y ago

Really wonder what the though process was regarding firing an employee who told them not to throw a party because they have an anxiety disorder, for having an anxiety attack.

sudden_dystopia 5y ago
The million dollar question. They were probably got embarrassed and fired them in a rage/panic for “causing” them the embarrassment.
- Aaronstotle 5y ago
  I'm surprised their legal/HR didn't push back or realize how much more this would cost them, I suspect your right that they felt embarrassed.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  I've been in socially-similar situations to this one, and I suspect it went a bit like this: Person says "don't do this thing, it will hurt me." Group says, "no it won't," or otherwise dismisses/forgets. Group does the thing. Person is injured, predictably, and takes protective/evasive actions. Group or subset of group becomes offended that person has taken protective/evasive actions, correctly believing actions to implicate the group's bad behavior. Group or subset of group smears their victim, amplifies or otherwise doubles-down on their initial misunderstanding or neglect of person's request not to injure them.

annoyingnoob 5y ago

Being employed means that you have to share certain personal information with the company, like your birth date, your address, your social security number, etc. But you don't expect the company to turn around and dox you to other employees. I'd argue that it was not the company's place to share this person's birth date with anyone, it was the company's place to keep private information private.

Latty 5y ago

"Unwanted birthday party" is such a misleading thing to claim as the root cause, reminds me of the McDonald's coffee case, framing very legitimate lawsuits as frivolous. Employer put him into a bad situation against his will, when he'd warned them and it wasn't necessary for his job, and then fired him when he had the reaction he'd foreseen. Obvious wrongful termination and horrific management.

giantg2 5y ago
Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It's literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability. Edit 2: someone here provided the additional type of information that I was interested in. It wasn't just the temperature, but also that the cup had a design flaw that made it likely to collapse if you took the lid off. Thanks!
- watwut 5y ago
  Because a lot of effort went into trying to convince people that this particular result was correct rather then failure.
- vkou 5y ago
  The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard. McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing. The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs. She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling. The award was later reduced. If the answer to bad corporate behaviour is not regulation, but rather lawsuits, then that lawsuit perfectly encapsulated the series of legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor, that has been alerted of a problem in their product, and refuses to resolve it.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing." Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings/awards. "The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs." That's an outcome/result. That has no real bearing on the culpability. "She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling." Again, nothing speaking to culpability here. "The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard." Ok, so this is basically what my comment said. It seems 185 is about 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. It also has a warning on it (jury said it's not big enough, but maybe we should have everyone sign waivers first?). "legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor" Depends on your viewpoint as to who is "bad". Edit: why disagree with this?

colpabar 5y ago

As someone who also does not like being the center of attention, I wish this man got more money, and that this company would go bankrupt. FUCK these people. They directly caused this man to have two panic attacks, BOTH of which could have been avoided by literally doing nothing, and then they fire him? Something that drives me absolutely nuts is that most people assume that anyone who wishes to avoid social interaction is actually really just too afraid to be social, and that forcing them to do so is an acceptable thing to do. It's not! It's incredibly callous and insensitive and it's something that should only ever be considered by extremely close friends. Please respect people's wishes when they say they don't want a party, especially if you are just coworkers!

unmole 5y ago
> I wish this man got more money, and that this company would go bankrupt. Because fuck proportionality and fuck every employee and shareholder of the company even if they had nothing to do with this?
paulpauper 5y ago
the lawyer will get probably a good chunk of it and the company will drag its feet to avoid payment or reduce the amount . not that much money. Goes to show how most outcomes are much smaller than headlines about tens or hundred million dollar settlements.
- everfree 5y ago
  After an award is given in a judgement, the time for a company to reduce the amount is long past, and they can only drag their feet for so long. With the proper filing, the plaintiff can put a lien on the company's bank accounts, and in egregious cases can even walk up with a cop and start taking stuff from the company to satisfy the award (a "sheriff's sale"). You're right that the lawyer will probably get a good chunk of it, though.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    The lawyer will probably get between 1/3 to 1/2 of the award. That's how they afford to take cases on a "no fee if you don't win" contingency basis.

olliej 5y ago

So it’s a wrongful dismissal suit, not even “just” having a party after being explicitly told not to. Person has an anxiety disorder, so explicitly said not to have a party. His manager had a party anyway, triggering a panic attack. He ran away to his car to recover and they fired him.

illuminerdy 5y ago

The article doesn't give enough information to determine whether this was a reasonable judgment. What actually happened when they discussed the event afterwards that led to his termination? That could have been completely justified even if they had originally been in the wrong for ignoring his request.

sudden_dystopia 5y ago

Dumb title. He was fired because of his reaction to the birthday party. And he won the lawsuit because of the termination, rightfully so. He didn’t win the lawsuit because of the party, he won because of wrongful termination.

moate 5y ago
He got 120,000 for lost wages and the other 300,000 dollars was for mental distress. You could attribute that exclusively to the firing, or more reasonably, to his company causing him to had 2 panic attacks related to a birthday party. Title is accurate.

hvs 5y ago

Good for him. The callous disregard for _pre-stated_ wishes and then trying to claim that "akstually HE was the real risk to OUR employees" shows that any sense of "friendly workspace" they are trying to encourage by having birthday parties (??!) for employees is just a thin-veneer over what is more reminiscent of a scene from "Office Space".

polski-g 5y ago
Its entirely probable that they did not accommodate his wishes AND he was violent.
- sha256sum 5y ago
  Strangely, this did not stop the jury from ruling in his favor. At what point can we give this person the benefit of the doubt that he was mistreated by his employer?
  - polski-g 5y ago
    Not honoring his wishes was a mistreatment...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tiahura 5y ago

There seem to be some missing facts. The statement from the business indicates that their defense for firing him was that they reasonably believed his flip-out could be the start of going postal. Without knowing what he said, it’s hard to judge. Since the jury found for plaintiff, I’m going to guess they didn’t see it as a credible threat.

Jiro 5y ago
If you were an employer who fired someone in this situation for no reason other than having a panic attack without hurting anyone, you'd probably lie and say that the panic attack put you in fear that he'd hurt someone.

dragonwriter 5y ago

No, the birthday party didn't. The company wrongfully firing him for the resulting panic attack did. I mean, doing the birthday party after the employee specifically asked not to for that exact reason is inexcusable to start with. Whoever decided that should have been fired, not the employee.

freedomben 5y ago

there are tons of comments here lambasting the company, which was my first reaction too, but then I noticed something important and think maybe the article might be leaving out some pretty important information. "Panic attack" can be pretty vague. I have them and it's usually just trouble breathing. However, everyone experiences them differently. A possible hint that the article is possibly omitting is here (emphasis mine): > “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do,” Brazil told Link NKY. “As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy. It sounds like he may have done something physically violent to somebody. Of course it's terrible that they put him in that situation to begin with, but it does seem pretty plausible to me that if he became violent and injured a person (who may not have been his supervisor that ignored his request) that does sound like their reaction isn't nearly as unreasonable as it sounds when you omit all detail of violence. It would be great to get some more details. For the record I'm not saying the firing was justified - I have no idea. Obviously a jury who does know decided it wasn't justified, and they have a lot more information than I/we do so they're probably right. All I'm saying is there may be some important information that we don't have that makes it a little less clear-cut evil.

chihuahua 5y ago
Yes, it would really help to have access to the whole story, not just the part that is favorable to one side of this dispute.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The jury had that, and made a decision accordingly.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    Yes, to be clear I (and I don't think parent) is disputing the jury's decision. I'm pointing out that the article (which is what everybody here is reacting to) isn't providing any info about what the "violence" was, or even acknowledging that it exists other than the part where they quoted the company rep. If the "violence" was him saying something mean/inappropriate or something (which I don't consider violence but many people do think speech can be violence) that would be largely irrelevant. But if he beat the shit out of somebody, that would make this case far less egregious and IMHO would make many of the reactionary comments here look terrible.

duxup 5y ago

The title seems like bait. They fired him because he had a panic attack, the party triggered it but wasn't the reason for the judgment.

gwbas1c 5y ago

I want to know more. This quote is really strange: > As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy Did the man really react violently? Or is Gravity Diagnostics not willing to admit that they handled the situation incorrectly?

phreack 5y ago
That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cause him to, say, punch someone in the face? There's so little detail in the article that one could imagine a scenario where firing the employee doesn't sound like a 100% asshole move.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Harder to imagine a scenario where firing the employee wasn't a 100% asshole move and the jury ruled in his favor though.
- moate 5y ago
  If someone says "do not do this no job-function related thing, it will be bad for me" and you do that, there's very few reactions that I feel would not still be the company's fault. Someone wanted cake and some goof off time and was using this man's birthday to meet that want in spite of it causing him distress. Everything after that is because of this cause. "This guy physically attacked me after I chose, against warning, to put him in a panic state" is an admission of guilt not a deflection of blame in my mind. Pretty classic neuro-typical behavior tbh.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    He didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.
astura 5y ago

mywittyname 5y ago

I can definitely empathize with this person. Anxiety issues are no joke. I've had panic attacks and they felt substantially more terrifying than the times where I've been in legitimate danger. And the triggers are so mundane. I once spent 20 minutes sitting on the floor in a grocery store after seeing an old friend, because, one of my triggers is seriously seeing people outside of the context where I normally do. This is emotionally equivalent to your coworkers putting you in a room with a lion as your birthday celebration. I'm sure people won't believe me. Even if you don't, if someone ever tells you that they don't like being the center of attention, just take their word for it.

jjeaff 5y ago
That is so interesting that you can react worse than when in real danger and I think that probably matches some of the people I know who struggle with anxiety. I wonder if that is simply because most of the time one gets into real danger, there is no lead up to it, it just happens quickly and unexpectedly - no time to dwell on it.
- foxyv 5y ago
  I've nearly drowned, been hung by the neck, threatened with a knife, jumped by a gang, strangled to unconsciousness, been stuck in a hole and almost fallen off a few cliffs. An anxiety reaction feels nearly identical to a near death experience except it lasts way longer and there is no point where you escape to safety. However, I think the near death experiences were worse because they would cause even more anxiety later. I still freak out near knives and hate when anyone comes up behind me. People touching my neck will send me off kicking and screaming.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    My goodness, well I think I know where your anxiety came from.
    - foxyv 4y ago
      This kind of stuff is more common than you would think. My room mate had it MUCH worse than I did as a kid. As the Buddha said: "In life there will be suffering/stress/pain/dissatisfaction."

jrootabega 5y ago

There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. Having long ago experienced panic disorder that overlapped with my professional life, I am grateful for having been accommodated and sympathetic to anyone who experiences it. But it's not clear here that the employee explained the full situation to their boss. Just that they said they didn't want a party, which a lot of people would say. Enduring some uncomfortable and unexpected social situations at work is a reasonable expectation of an employee. Enduring unexpected work stress in general is a reasonable expectation of an employee. It's not inherently evil to fire an employee who has poor reactions to workplace stress. Panic attacks as a result of an unwanted birthday party are not that far off from panic attacks from having to meet a new co-worker, boss, or give a talk to even a small group. But again, there's not enough in this article to really anlalyze. It's infotainment contrasting of the inanity of a birthday party with the firing/damages.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. That the jury ruled in his favor is a significant detail.
colanderman 5y ago
He was fired after having a second panic attack when his managers called him in to a meeting and "accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy". [1] [1] https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  That's some dystopian shit right there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 5y ago
There's not enough detail or background here to make confident armchair readings about anything. When someone asks for something you should respect their wishes, and this company chose to ignore that and follow the protocol despite being asked not to. From that alone I know that this company is not somewhere good to work. Putting following the rules when you don't need to ahead of people's welfare is a huge red flag.

PKop 5y ago

Why is it not a legitimate cause for firing that an employees can't fit in socially amongst the other employees and take part in company functions? Companies have all sort of annoying requirements and tasks employees must do, how is this one different? Isn't company culture a thing many find necessary to uphold? Maybe birthday parties are part of this company's culture. One might say it's not necessary to the job, but is this true? Social events and employee camaraderie are arguably necessary to a well functioning workplace. I'm not even arguing that parties are necessary but that a company can decide for themselves if they are no? And that if someone is so uncomfortable taking part then perhaps they don't belong at the company. Why is it a legitimate expectation that a company and its employees must accommodate your problems to such a degree?

betwixthewires 5y ago
In the US, the americans with disabilities act requires workplaces to provide reasonable accommodation for disabilities. They're not required to hire you if you're incapable of doing your job as per it's description, and they're not required to accommodate to an unreasonable degree. Not throwing someone a birthday party sounds like a perfectly reasonable accommodation. Beyond that, people have to push back at those annoying requirements. Should a company be allowed to have whatever requirements it wants to have? Should I? Do we belong to them?
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
They fit in fine, as far as job functions are concerned. It's explicitely not ok for 'social fit' to be a firing offence, isn't it? That's another word for "Not our kind of person" which opens an ugly door. Parties targeting one person are so, so problematic. Nobody asked anybody to 'accomodate' this person. They asked to be left alone, which is literally zero accomodation.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > explicitely not ok for 'social fit' to be a firing offence, isn't it? Most employment is at will. That permits firing someone for not being a good fit. (You can't define "fit" however you feel. But someone not getting along with their colleagues and not responding to feedback would generally be fireable for it.)

scelerat 5y ago

A lot of strong opinions here based on one vague article. The CEO says the plaintiff was fired for violating a workplace violence policy. Obviously the court disagreed. Why? The lessons for the wider world will be found in the case details themselves, few of which are actually in this article.

js2 5y ago
The original reporting is much clearer: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f... 1. Kevin Berling didn’t want Gravity Diagnostics, his former employer, to throw him a birthday party. 2. “The person who was responsible for the birthday parties who he talked to flat out forgot about his request. She didn’t do it to be mean. She said she would accommodate it and she just forgot.” 3. The party was thrown anyway, and Berling began to have a panic attack. He went to his car and worked through some breathing techniques. He then went back upstairs and finished his workday. 4. The following day Berling was called into a conference room to have a discussion about the party. According to Berling, she started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy. 5. He started to have another panic attack. At this point he starts employing other coping techniques that he’s worked on for years with his therapist. “The way he described it is he started hugging himself and asked them to please stop.” 6. The two employees in the conference room asked Berling to stop, and when he didn’t, they walked out. Once the panic attack had subsided, Berling walked out of the conference room and was asked to leave the building. He was let go a couple of days later. On points 5 and 6: Berling's attorney: "They way [the Gravity Diagnostics employees] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent. They made assumptions that he was dangerous based off of his disability and not off of any evidence that he was violent. If he had made violent gestures Gravity Diagnostics would have had grounds to fire him, but he didn’t do anything threatening." Gravity Diagnostics COO: "My employees deescalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do."
- 5y ago

coolso 5y ago

cjbgkagh 5y ago
I think a lot of it is genetic, the poor guy should have picked better genes.

temp8964 5y ago

The first panic attack made sense. What’s the reason for the second panic attack?

ceejayoz 5y ago
> A day later after he arrived for work, he was called into a meeting with two superiors, who “confronted and criticized” him for how he reacted to the birthday party he did not want, according to the lawsuit. This caused him to have another panic attack.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I read that, that’s why I have the question. What’s the reason for the second panic attack? Confronted and criticized?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    It literally says exactly that, including the line "This caused him to have another panic attack."
  - anaxag0ras 5y ago
    > According to my client, she started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other coworkers’ joy. He started to have another panic attack, Bucher said. Original article: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Thanks!

astura 5y ago

Honestly, birthday parties are so incredibly fraught with potential issues they should really not be "celebrated" in the office on an individual level. You have all sorts of people who'd really rather not - not just people with anxiety issues, but also religious prohibitions (Jehovah's Witness), and just personal preference. Some people don't like it when others even know their birthday.

cjbgkagh 5y ago
I figure at least ask the birthday person the day before.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

Fuck toxic work environments.

colanderman 5y ago

Source article has more details: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...

wnevets 5y ago

> Four days later, after his office managers confronted him about his reaction to the party, he was fired from the Northern Kentucky company, court records show. I feel like we're burying the lead by suggesting he got money because of an unwanted party. He was fired because of a medical disorder triggered by the party and was compensated for wrongful termination.

cjbgkagh 5y ago
He had the foresight to ask his employer to make a reasonable accommodations for his disability. Not having a birthday party seems reasonable enough to me.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Disability aside, a lot of people don't like birthday parties at work, for various reasons. For example I think some religions forbid celebrating ones birthday. Other people just don't like it and think it's inappropriate for an office setting. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to not have one's birthday recognized at work, for whatever reason stated or unstated.
  - cjbgkagh 5y ago
    Totally agree. People should not be forced to have a birthday party.

js2 5y ago

The order of events is somewhat hard to follow from the submitted link. The original reporting is much clearer: https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...

bradgranath 5y ago

We're all watching Severance, right?

moate 5y ago
I imagine the reaction would have been so much worse had it been a Waffle Party.

bluecalm 5y ago

My beef with this kind of verdicts is that the perpetrators are not punished. The company pays reasonable compensation/damages to the plantiff. The managers who ignored his requests and caused the whole mess go along with their lives without any consequences. There should be some mechanism to enforce responsibility for shitty behaviour.

meatsauce 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tpoacher 5y ago

> "... and later apologized for having a panic attack" This is just sad.

stuntkite 5y ago

Similar things have happened to me. I've gotten pretty good at ditching out on the events stuff and eventually leaving after it gets bad. My birthday is mine, you don't get to use it just because I have to give it to you for tax reasons. I don't want you cake pops. I want to do work. This has lead to making things worse and I've had segments of people in companies target me for my unwillingness to mess with that stuff. I have left jobs over things that read like this. I never thought about suing. It would just be such a huge pain and I'd already be looking for a new job. If I end up in a space where this happens again, I'll have my attorney draft a strongly worded letter or maybe add some lines to my employee agreement saying that they don't own my likeness so I'm not going to appear in promotional materials, you can't tell anyone my birthday, and I don't want any weird awards or whatever. They'll sign it... forget... and then when I have to quit it'll make the lawsuit easier.